This following statement has just been made public by David Rodríguez:
As of yesterday, November 10, 2014, Fr. Michael Rodríguez, is no longer the Administrator of Sacred Heart Mission in Shafter, TX. He has been given a six-month sabbatical in order to discern God’s Will for the future. Fr. Rodríguez remains a priest in good-standing of the Diocese of El Paso. He will most likely be looking at options for priestly ministry beyond the Diocese of El Paso. Fr. Rodríguez has been offering the Traditional Latin Mass exclusively for the past three years, and this has led to increasing difficulties for him with the local hierarchy. Fr. Rodríguez asks for your prayers, and he especially asks you to pray for the small group of faithful (about 50) of the Presidio-Shafter area who are heartbroken over the loss of the Traditional Latin Mass and parish life based on the Traditional Latin Mass.
Admittedly, Fr. Rodríguez is in a very difficult situation. On the one hand, he intends to do his best to be obedient to his bishop. On the other hand, Fr. Rodríguez is convinced that God is calling him – through the Church – to dedicate his priesthood and all his energy and strength to promote the Church’s greatest treasures: her timeless liturgy and doctrine. Both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have acknowledged that the Church is suffering through a terrible crisis of Faith in the post-Vatican II era, and Fr. Rodríguez, as a loyal priest and son of the Church, cannot stand idly by in the face of such widespread disparagement and abandonment of the Catholic Faith.
In making any decisions for the future, Fr. Rodríguez is begging God to purify his motives, so that he may act, first and foremost, out of love and fidelity to Jesus Christ and His holy Church, and for the salvation of souls. As a loyal son of Holy Mother Church, Fr. Rodríguez is 100% committed to following, teaching, promoting, and defending her Traditional Mass (holy liturgy) and her unchangeable truths (holy doctrine), e.g. the sacredness of marriage, the indissolubility of marriage, the grave sin and intrinsic evil of homosexual acts.
In closing, Fr. Rodríguez asks that efforts be redoubled to pray for the Holy Father so that he will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as requested by Our Lady of Fatima. May the reign of Christ the King come through the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother!
In a few days a number of us will begin a continuous series of nine-day novenas imploring the intercession of Our Lady and the saints on Fr. Rodríguez’s behalf. I will email more information on that in a few days. Moreover, we will pray a 54-Day Rosary Novena on his behalf from Dec 10 – Feb 1, that is between the Marian feasts of the Immaculate Conception and the Purification of Our Lady, (also the feast of Our Lady of Good Success). We invite all to join us in offering these prayers. Thank you very much for your prayers and support.
PADRE
PERPLEXES
Rodriguez the Padre
Son of Our Madre
Spoke the Truth down in Texas.
The Bishop got mad
For the sinners were sad
Because true priests can give them complexes.
So the Bishop said, “No!
You’ll just have to go –
You’ve no right to confuse confused sexes!”
So he sent him away
For he knew he’d obey
But men of good-will made the nexus –
Such Bishops expose
Their long growing nose
Like witches they try to put hexes…
But Christ knows which witch
Is digging his ditch –
To be a corpse in the deep heart of Texas!
RUN don’t walk to the SSPX!!
Oh what a loss. Apart from Archbishop Fulton Sheen, I have never heard a priest preach like Fr. Rodriguez. How I wish we had this holy priest in Ireland. We are once again experiencing a Great Famine in Ireland, only this time it is far more serious since it is a spiritual famine! Even traditional Catholics who attend the Latin Rite exclusively, are hungry to hear such powerful sermons. I would travel 6 hours from north to south just to listen to this pries. May God bless him and comfort him! We are praying for you Rev Father. Thank you for your love for Our Lord and Holy Mother Church.
Is father without a home? a quite place to pray to God while he discerns what to do?
I should think he is spoilt for choice for he will be loved by many. Who wouldn’t want such a holy priest under their roof! Blessed indeed is the house where he dwells. Sr. Irene, Ireland
I’m wondering if this is of his own choosing, or if his bishop has ordered it.
Yes, I know another holy priest who also has come to love the TLM and is presently without an assignment. He is young too, 36. He was the best homilist in town and I always learned from his preaching and teaching. He was a fabulous confessor and has a gift with the young people. All those things are not too highly prized in the modern Church beginning at the top.
Let us persevere.
Craig, From his last sermon, it seems that this was imposed. May Jesus, Mary & Joseph comfort him during this time.
I believe that careful consideration of the following quotations may be of help when attempting to work out one’s salvation with fear and trembling:
1) “In like manner all the articles [of faith] are contained implicitly in certain primary matters of faith, such as God’s existence, and His providence over the salvation of man, according to Hebrews 11: ‘He that cometh to God, must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to them that seek Him’.” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
2) “God does not exist: Do not be shocked!” (Jorge Bergoglio)
(Link below must be prefixed with “http:”)
//en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/10/09/pope_at_santa_marta_what_we_dare_not_hope_forp/1108212
Discern God’s will for the future? Or more likely Bergoglio’s will. It was only a matter of time before the papal ax took aim at this very holy priest who adheres to Tradition and does not mince words. His sermon “The Enemy Within” was boldly courageous. Let us pray that Father Rodriguez seeks shelter where he can’t be further victimized —- the SSPX!
I just listened to the good Father’s last sermon and I feel blessed to have been able to hear him.
—
It seems shocking. But what could shock us now, after what we’ve seen and heard over the past 18 months or so?
—
This is a trial for all of us. Louie, we in our home will be joining you in Rosaries for Father Rodriguez.
More persecution of the faithful priests, bishops, religious and lay. I had wondered that Fr Rodriguez had lasted this long preaching the truth of Faith and morals, with zeal and authority and love. His online homilies are a treasure, very edifying to the soul. I shall include Father in my daily prayers. I am very grateful for the few who continue to resist the lies from above.
Amen. I live in Ireland, too, Mona. Lord, have mercy.
I am currently in the diocese of El Paso, TX, which Fr. Rodriguez belongs to. After they rolled up his thriving parish here (San Juan Bautista Catholic Church) in 2012 and exiled him to Shafter, TX (on the eastern edge of the diocese), they invited two FSSP priests and gave them a beautiful church and campus all their own this August. The treatment of Fr. Rodriguez by this diocese is deplorable and it is the reason I will steadfastly support the SSPX priory here. No prelate is going to suspend my SSPX priests and take away my right to the Mass of our Fathers. The reality today is that the hostility of many chanceries to the TLM (and Catholic orthodoxy) remains unabated since Summorum Pontificum. And the current Supreme Pontiff seems to be in favor of these heavy handed tactics – illicit tactics, I might add – that deprive Catholics of their religious patrimony.
I will continue to pray for and with a great man of God like Father Michael Rodriguez and I hope his sermon linked to above will go viral. It is one of the most powerful I have ever listened to. God bless these courageous priests!
Isn’t the bishop of El Paso, the Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz, D.D., being rather multiculturally insensitive to a Latino priest saying the Latin Mass? Do all Masses have to be in dull English with 1960s hippy hymns? Can’t we have a little diversity?
Please tell Father we are praying for him. What a beautiful priest. Our family will include him in our daily rosary. I am so sorry to hear, but I know God and Our Lady will bring him through. She is preparing him for something special that will help save souls. God Bless You Father and your parish. We will pray for them too. My first reaction to this news was anger, but I know God is in control. Sadly, these persecutors must not feat God. Imagine, a good and holy priest loses his parish…apparently there is no mercy and “walking with the other” in his case.
We’re not suggesting Father is guilty as charged, but we don’t think it’s wise to automatically presume innocence of all charges, when available evidence leaves reasonable doubt. Even good priests are capable of rationalizing away wrong actions done for good intentions, being human and capable of sin or disorientation. The devil looks for any entrances especially with outstanding consecrated souls. Since no one presented the other side, we took a look and found this:
THE CHARGES FROM HIS FORMER PARISH Jan. 2012
In the lawsuit, Bishop Ochoa alleged that Rodriguez solicited donations but broke church policy when he didn’t deposit the donations in the right church account, and instead put the money in another church account not usually audited by the Diocese AND THEN transferred that money to personal accounts he opened at Government Employees Credit Union (“GECU”), the lawsuit alleges. Rodriguez had deposited the money in bank accounts he kept secret — AND THE MONEY, IN THE EVENT OF HIS DEATH, WOULD GO TO HIS MOTHER. The money in those accounts ballooned to more than a $250,000. Father never mentions any of this in public statements he made at the time, -at least that we could find.
___.
The lawsuit also implicates the priest’s brother, David Rodriguez. Bishop Ochoa alleges Fr. Rodriguez, through his brother, on two occasions, wrote a $20,000 check to construction companies, that the checks came from the church account with the church donations. Rodriguez would then, through his brother, David, ask the construction companies to write him back a check of the same amount, according to the lawsuit. NO CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS EVERY PERFORMED by the companies, the lawsuit alleges. In a wrtiten statement, Bishop Ochoa said. “Fr. Rodriguez and those acting in concert with him, had no right to appropriate for themselves funds donated to the parish.”
–The Bishops’ accountability site also says Rodrigues paid moneys to his brother AND sister.
-The Rev. Tony Celino, spokesman for the diocese, said “The diocese and the bishop acted properly when they transferred Fr. Rodriguez to Santa Teresa Parish in Presidio, Texas, because in his current assignment, as parochial vicar he does not enjoy any responsibility of administration, especially financial administration of the parish,” “That responsibility falls into the hands of the Parish Administrator, Fr. Jose Alfredo Hinojosa.”
___
Local papers and an author have now accused the Church of another coverup, for not filing criminal charges against the priest, but transferring him to keep it all quiet and handle it internally, leaving him functioning as a priest. “It’s like an accountant who’s stolen. He should never be given access to money again.”
=====================
HIS BROTHER DAVID SAID, “I never ASKED a construction company. Now, I DID WORK FOR A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND THERE WERE TIMES WHEN I HAD TAKEN ENVELOPES FROM FATHER TO THEM, but that’s all. I did not ASK anyone to write any checks. That’s not true.”
___
THE DIOCESE SAYS IT HAS RECOVERED ALL BUT 27,000 OF THE $227,000.00.
==================================================
Father Rodriguez responded saying, “I have always honored, respected, and made good use of the financial patrimony of San Juan Bautista.” He listed all the things done at the parish over 9 1/2 –such as repair work new floorings and traditional altar, as well as many hours of spiritual programs.
___
Father also spent “unaccouted-for moneys” In September, 2011 when he ran a four page ad in the El Paso Times titled, ‘The Truth About Homosexuality.”
Rodriguez said the ads were sparked by El Paso City Council’s decision to reinstate benefits to domestic partners of city employees. He told Newschannel 9 that the ads were paid for by “a group of Catholics who wished to remain anonymous”.
====================================================
In a separate article, Rodriguez called the lawsuit “unfortunate and unjust” and said the hundreds of former parishioners who would eagerly testify on his behalf. He speculated that the charges are likely because he is a traditional priest speaking out against homosexuality.
===================
====================
A few things don’t add up here. The words both his brother David and Father each used above, don’t deny any of the specific charges, or the existence of the secret accounts, from which the $200,000 was recovered. Parishioners who see a hard-working dedicated priest, won’t KNOW about secret banking he does or deals with his brother’s constructions company, so naturally they’d vouch for him. That proves nothing. If some pre-arranged check-cashing arrangements were made with the Construction company, then his brother would just be a courier, and not HAVE to ASK for any checks, so his statement could be technically true and still be purposely misleading. And the reports all say the company did no work for the parish, and his mother was beneficiary of he accounts in case of his death.
==========
Though it may be unlikely, it is humanly possible that a very orthodox, priest might have been using relatives to do work for the parish, and paying them inapropritely and not accounting properly for transactions–(say, to help his family) and build up a fund for his aging mother. NOT saying he did that, just that it’s humanly possible to be as good as he appears to be, and still not think entirely straight. He emphasizes all the hours of work her did, quite extensively. Also why would a bishop make up such an intricate and detailed “story” involving a construction company, his family, and a credit union, cashed checks and a beneficiary statement, all of which can be proven or disproved? None of Father’s public statements answer any of those questions. We’re still praying for him and everyone involved. But there are these unanswered questions to consider.
================
Add prefix http: //www.bishop-accountability.org/news2012/01_02/2012_01_14_Schladen_LawsuitFiled.htm
//www.ktsm.com/news/bishop-files-charges-against-former-el-paso-priest
//www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_19741694?source=most_viewed
//www.kvia.com/news/Bishop-Sues-Father-Rodriguez-Over-Church-Donations/15244572
Indignus,
I am very surprised at your zeal to impugn the priests reputation, since you yourself after, seemingly some research (done perhaps with your friends in the Curia at El Paso ?) admit that it is only a question of $27,000 missing.
But you neglect to tell us what was the salary owed the Father during his time as Pastor in that parish, and did it amount to $27,000?
Also, you neglect to tell us that it has been the immemmorial practice of the Roman Clergy to have complete responsibility for the funds of the parish; infact, it was the widespread practice that the pastor who held the benefice received all the collections and disposed of them according to his discretion. Here in the USA, the Bishop only received the cathedraticum of 5% of those proceeds. And the Vatican itself has for a long time urged the Bishops not to claim the entire property of the parishes, but to incorporate them individually.
As separate corporations, the pastor and clergy are normally the officers of the corporation; and unless the constitutions and bylaws of those corporations expressly limit the use of the finds, a priest is clergy as in any non-profit would be completely free to decide who to dispose of the funds as best they saw fit.
The general principle behind all this, is Apostolic teaching, wherein St Paul says a preacher is worth his due, and should be allowed to be supported upon the grain he harvests.
So strong is this ethic throughout the Catholic Church, that many laity give donations directly to their local pastor, not wanting the Bishop even to know or have a say in it. Such donations do not have to be placed in the Diocesan controlled funds, but can be legitimately placed in the personal accounts of the priests who receive them.
Seeing Father’s perfect faith, and knowing how publically the perfidy and corruption of the Diocese of El Paso is known by the faithful there, I would not find it impossible that all the funds donated to the parish normally might be donated to the priest personally by the express intention of the donors.
The justice of Father is further shown that only 10% of the funds claimed by the Bishop were not returned, and there remains to know what the salary the Diocese determined would have amounted to in the time he was pastor.
Yes, it does sound like the Bishop wants all the monies received. But in canon law, does he have that right? I don’t think so, so long as the donors donated it to Father, not to the Bishop.
Dear Roman Watcher,
Thank you for your comments to Indignus. It is very easy to sling mud on a holy, Traditional priest, while proven sins of New Order clergy are very easily cast aside. The best defense I could offer for Father Rodriguez (I do not know him personally) is that Father Rodriguez desires Heaven where he could adore Our Lord eternally. Unless he is totally schizophrenic, he will do nothing to jeopardize this for himself or for his flock. Also, I have just listened to Father Rodriguez’s final sermon (see link at end of Louie’s blog). From midpoint on, he has the final word. This Magisterium (or any Magisterium) has absolutely NO authority to change the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-TLM- to an ecumenical lovefest. Nor does it have ANY authority to distort Catholic dogma in any of the Church’s teachings. Good for you, Father Rodriguez– God bless you and pray for us as we pray for you.
Dear Roman Watcher, –response to #15 above:
Regarding your accusation of our “zeal to impugn the priest’s reputation”..
People who make the mistake of living by a code that enables them to rigorously and blindly defend those they pre-select as friends, while falsely maligning those they consider enemies, fall more easily into prejudice, greater falsehood and ultimately sinful judgment, and other malicious behaviors that tend to accompany those vices. We have chosen to live by one that requires us to strive to know the truth about any given situation, -whether learning it ends up pleasing us, or not.
___
We do that by gathering as many facts, testimonies, and visible pieces of evidence as possible; and assessing that as rationally and logically as we are able in the time allotted, before making prliminary decisions, statements, or judgments about what seems true about it, and with what degree of certainty.
Although time-consuming, this process, would help anyone avoid the traps of falsely accusing the innocent, or championing the guilty.
It is not a guarantee of that, but a tremendous aid, and thus exchanging information with others, can help us all come to hold better-informed opinions.
___
Those who attempt to discredit innocent opponents with pre-emptive strikes of slanderous innuendo and/or mockery, only stand to lose all credibility over time, as their victims’ characters become better known; and will, besides, eventually answer to a higher court than public opinion.-worth considering.
__
Regarding the other points you raised, then, the first is obviously false, -covered by what we just explained.
The second, is false as well, as we made no attemt to “have” you or anyone “accept” the alleged theft”, but merely presented the existence of such claims and the apparent credibility of the circumstantial evidence which accompanies them, i.e. that if said missing funds were actually “returned” by the accused; -and if they were located where stated, in a non-disclosed, personal account willed to his mother, then the allegations of his taking personal possession of moneys collected for the Church, while deliberately concealing that fact -at least from the Diocese-should leave more serious questions to be asked by any person wishing to be fair and honest in assessing the whole situation -including Father’s part in it, which, it should go without saying, we sincerely hope was in total innocence.
__
Maybe you’re a very wealthy person, but neither we, nor the law use the dismissivie word “only” to describe a missing $27,000 dollars, and it misrepresents the gravity of that to use that old government trick of translating it to a percentage of the whole, to make it appear more miniscule. The Texas code defines it as a felony of the third degree (not a misdemeanor),if the value of the property stolen is $20,000 or more, up to $100,000. And before any of those funds were “returned”, the entire 250,000 in father’s accounts would have been a first degree felony, had criminal charges been filed, and Father’s 6 month sabattical might well have become 6 years in prison,(no less than 5 and up to life or 99years for a first degree) plus a $10,000 mandatory fine that the Church would end up paying, presumably. The fact that a lawsuit was filed at all, indicates how seriously the Diocese took the sitution.
___
We see no connection between the funds in question, and any annual salary- which Father would have collected in ADDITION to them. Are you saying that if he DID “intend to take” the money knowing it was wrong to use it for his extended family, it should be of no concern to anyone because he’s worth it and deserved a raise of that amount in salary? and despite the fact that it was raised and earmarked specifically for Church repairs? That only illustrates the kind of rationalization and situation ethics we suggested people recognize as something even a good priest might fall into, -with the help of a little diabolic disorientation and some well-intended kindness towards someone other than himself, to foster it.
___
While we obviously didn’t take the discussion where you have, i.e. attempting to argue hypothetically that if Father IS guilty of the charges, then he deserves to suffer no consequences–even in the arena of public condemnation of it as a crime.
___
That doesn’t mean we can’t consider the new ideas you proposed here, as additional information that might in some way mitigate it. For example, –that some or all of his parishioners may have distrusted the Diocese and designated funds for his personal use only, is a possibility for at least some, if not all of it. We would have to disagree with carrying that out, because of if being such a large sum 250,000, that the Diocese would have no knowlege of – as they would likely be responsible for tax returns on their properties, employeees and priests, as well as being a legitimate designated authority to provide protection from individual priestly fraud.
So there still appear to be more legitimate questions than answers.
=====
Dear My2cents,
We hope you will read our response to RW below, and come to see the valid difference between seeking truth and “mud-slinging”. No one is disputing Father’s very apparent zeal for the Faith or the facts -which he itemized publicly in his response to his Bishop, regarding his labors for his flock’s spiritual benefit.-Where he listed more Catholic functions, Masses, confessions, devotions and study courses than you’d see in 5 parishes. We think if you are not judging interior/ souls as sinful, as only God ultimately can you should not rush to canonize anyone living or require others to be silent about serious allegations regarding only their words and actions, which if discussed, may help to exhonerate them.
Misappropriation of funds seems a convenient charge sometimes. I know the holy founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate was accused of embezzlement! And this against a one who lives holy poverty. His family was also accused and all this publicly to besmirch their good name. The priest most likely would not have defended himself but the family would not put up with calumny and hired an attorney. And, guess what? The charges turned out to be false. As in a lie. As in calumny. That is still a sin as far as I know unless the ‘merciful’ modernists have struck that down too.
Dear M C M,
Not knowing that history, we’re just wondering,- were those making the false accusations later prosecuted for those crimes or were they “untouchables” in the hierarchy?
Cardinal Burke has been demoted. Father Rodriguez has been ordered to take “a sabbatical”. I wonder when the famous laughing Cardinal from NY (aka Cardinal “Bravo”) will be similarly called to discern God’s will for his future. I bet that would really be hysterical. I don’t think we will ever see that day!!!!
Indignus,
Thank you for your expressions of indignation. Now you know what Fathre might be subject to.
I am not satisfied that you obviated the obvious counter-reasons I gave with dismissing any right the priest has to administer the funds and to a salary.
Until we know whether Father took a salary besides these $27,000 then your charges and the diocese charges do not seem more probably just ones.
As for the $27,000, did you not say that Father did not take it, but that it represents monies spent on preaching the Faith in the local paper? Did you investigate whether donors allowed that diversion of funds, i e gave their consent?
Thus it remains, that no monies were stolen. That the monies were not put in the account the Bishop wanted used, is not of itself a grave offense, because the question remains whose money was it? and even if it was the Parish’s, whether the Pastor had right to move to another account/bank which paid better returns or provided bank services more conveniently or at less fees.
In the end, Father stole and mismanaged no monies… If he considered highering a company to do work but was refunded in full, then he was neither involved in check fraud as you allege with the Diocese.
I think you misunderstood the fundamental argument I made though, seemingly as you are trained in civil not canon law. that a pastor has full right to manage the funds of a parish, and the Bishop does not have the divine or moral right to all of those funds, neither in civil or canon law. It depends upon the circumstances.
For example if Father raised the funds because the parishioners charged him with the refurbishing, then he was their custodian and they ought not be put in the parish account, but a separate one. In civil law, the priest can open any account he wishes, because monies gathered for religious purposes are considered part of a non-taxable non-obliged-to-be-reported funds of a non-profit activity.
So all the charges you made (and you did make them by repeating them and defending them) melt away, to merely the assertion of fluff…
I wonder if the Bishop’s friends in the Diocese are allowed to have their own accounts, as is done in many dioceses, where millions go on mansions or dinners for the homo friends of the bishop/firiends.
Father, on the other hand, spent, from what you say, nearly all or all on God’s works with no personal profit to himself, and returned the rest.
As for designating funds in an account which would go to his mother, I can think of no other way of discouraging the Gay Mafia of eliminating a priest, than for him to do that: He was using leverage, perhaps…
I believe the people of the parish were wanting to fund some renovation projects related to the TLM…restoring the high altar, altar rails, etc. The bishop wouldn’t allow it and wanted any and all donations to the parish. The people had a right to ask Fr or whoever to set up a special fund/account for this. In short, they wanted their donations to go for the greater glory of God, and not to a liberal homo sympathizing bishop’s pet projects…whatever those may have been.
Fr ‘s “crime” was saying the Latin Mass, publicly preaching on the need to bring it back, and publicly preaching against homo-marriage and against the infiltration of the lavender mafia within the Church. He ticked off the enemy within. Just like the FFI, just like Cardinal Burke.
They accused the FFI of similar charges. I imagine such will be levied against Cardinal Burke sooner or later.
Dear Roman watcher,
Corrections: nothing we wrote in our response to your comment contained any actual “indignation”, as you claimed, but it’s easy for anyone to project imagined emotions into what others write, when you can’t hear or see them speak. So we’ll ignore the false assumptions based on that, and assure you we were simply stating our convictions matter of factly. And BTW, when we put things in quotes we’re simply citing what you wrote, not intending any sarcasm.
___
We don’t need to be shown “how Father feels” as you implied, but if by that you were trying to say that our presentation of some facts of his case demonstrated a lack of feeling or that our post was somehow “out of line”, we disagree, and would hope you will try to let go of any need you feel to control the blog’s subject matter to such a degree as that, as it’s counterproductive to what Louie stated are his objectives i.e. an open discussion conducted in a Christian manner.
___
You also wrote “I am not satisfied that you obviated the obvious counter-reasons I gave with dismissing any right the priest has to administer the funds and to a salary.”
__
Inasmuch as obviating involves heading-off what is useless, you should be grateful, for our pointing out we had no way of ascertaining certain facts which then become merely opposing opinions. We’re sorry you aren’t “satisfied” with that, but we proposed what we felt was reasonable in light of that difficulty, and you are free to disagree and provide further proof if you so desire, and wish to research the matter further. (We mention this subject in more detail, again at the end.)
___
You mischaracterized our suggestions and the questions we proposed as “charges”, likening us to the Bishop who actually filed them, again it seems in an attempt to portray us falsely as either unfeeling, or as decided against Father in the matter, when we very explicitly said it leads only to more questions.
Repeatedly misstating what people say, is not a refutation, but a tactic.
___
You wrote: “Until we know whether Father took a salary besides these $27,000 then your charges and the diocese charges do not seem more probably just ones.”
We may never even know whether Father or someone else took the 27,000, much less whether he had a salary, but we have been told by pastors that there is strict accounting to the Bishops for special funds designated for projects, and salaries are not paid from them. Even if you say they are in some place, you’ve just proved our point, that we are only left with more questions, which in turn again disputes your contention that we judged him.
___
You then wrote “As for the $27,000, did you not say that Father did not take it, but that it represents monies spent on preaching the Faith in the local paper? Did you investigate whether donors allowed that diversion of funds, i.e. gave their consent?”
-Since you got that one completely wrong, we’ll ignore the question you attached as irrelevant. We said no such thing regarding the 27,000, and Father claimed the donors for the ads were “anonymous”, providing no further information to the public that we could find. We never said father “took” any money.
___
Your argument apparently remains that Father should have had total control over all the money, which we have no way of proving or disproving at this point. But the simple fact remains that based on the number of financial abuses and embezzlements in the Church today, Dioceses around our country were instructed to implement much stricter audit- controls years ago, designed to prevent just such autonomy. So the real question is, has Canon law been changed to allow for that, or does it somehow not conflict because of some other regulations which gives precedence to securing funds? You seem to be the resident expert there, but also seemed unaware of the financial changes already in place.
___
You wrote, “So all the charges you made (and you did make them by repeating them and defending them) melt away, to merely the assertion of fluff”
Again they were not charges, just because you insist on declaring them so, and we clearly stated them as remaining questions a number of times,, which invites anyone to add their own opinions. What we have defended here, are a number of your distortions of our statements and meanings, not any charge against the poor father.
God Bless.
Indignus,
You seem oblivious of the most basic rule of debate, that the facts you bring forward to prove your point are as much charges against the one accused in them as they are charged made by you in virtue of publishing them on this blog.
And yes, I have a lot more experience in the financial matters of ecclesiastical institutions that you seem to have, wanting as you appear to, that everything be conducted as it is in a private corporation. Financial bookkeeping mixups occur every day especially by newly ordained priests who havent the foggiest idea of how to keep books let alone keep paperwork.
Just how many laymen out there dont even keep a balanced checkbook?!
If you condemn every priest for such violations of human custom, you can always find something to condemn a traditional priest.
And that is just my point. But you seem oblivious to the obvious, and only willing to defend yourself, when the faith requires that we first defend the clergy from false charges.
It is a scurrilous thing for you to disseminate such shoddy charges against any priest let alone a good one on this forum where the purpose of Lous post is to encourage moral support for him. You make Lou look uninformed and you have the arrogance to defend your improprieties, while a shameless disregard to the respect on should have for a priest.
You claim you have not charged the priest with anything, that you only quote what others said of him, yet you do say:
“Though it may be unlikely, it is humanly possible that a very orthodox, priest might have been using relatives to do work for the parish, and paying them inapropritely and not accounting properly for transactions–(say, to help his family) and build up a fund for his aging mother.”
Which proves your false self-righteous defense, because it is clear from that quote that you did not hesitate to speculate that he may be guilty of other crimes or improprieties.
Thus you seem to be nothing but a Pharisee who is eager to trash a traditional priest, and that gives me good ground to doubt why you are on this blog.
To denigrate my devotion to the clergy, that I would come to the defense of this priest by giving reasons to doubt the claims made against his character, is the epitome of outrageous immorality which you glibly spew.
Excuse me, but I am very indignant at you, for solid objective reasons, what you have wrote, the lack of discretion and the bias used and false virtue you claim to be using.
I will add, in fine, that you have brought forward no facts to disprove any of my arguments to excuse Father of theft. It remains that the diocese recoved all but the $27,000, which without evidence to the contrary, must reasonably be explained by normal expenses to operate a parish and run religious functions, which even in a small parish can run 100,000 a year. If one does not keep books, it is easy for such sums to be spent, especially by a priest who is concerned with more than saving up every penny to enrich a greedy bishop, rather than generously caring for the poor, his parishioners and the cult of religion of which he has duty to conduct with the utmost dignity and care.
It is clear to me that Indignus Famulus was acting in good faith by raising the matter of a public lawsuit. From what I know of this holy priest, I doubt there was any immoral use of funds by him. I’m sure the truth will become known. Sadly, it is not an untypical MO to smear a traditional priest or cover up persecution. What CraigV says above sounds like the probable scenario. Dear Lord, protect Fr Rodriguez and all his former parishioners.
Well RW, It looks like your earned another $25 today. Go buy yourself an ice cream. Maybe the sugar rush will get your brain back in gear.
Dear RW,
A lot of that was obnoxious, We feel like responding in kind. But we’ll say a prayer instead.
Dear Lynda,
Thanks for saying that. We were. 🙂 🙂
Indignus,
You care not a penny to calumniate and detract the good reputation of a priest on the very blog page wherein Lou praises him for his virtue.
Don’t deceive yourself. You are guilty of 2 great mortal sins, objectively speaking, and in refusing to admit your fault and responding with insult, several others. I have every right to reubke you for your sins and expose them for what they are. You have evidently lost, if you ever had it, a right notion of discretion and respect for your betters.
…not seven times, but seventy times seven
Indignus,
Your quest for the truth is commendable. A commenter at Father Z’s has raised the same issue. Courage.
Le Grand Derangement….
Oh, yes, calumny and detraction justify calumny and detraction…
You have chosen a just nickname…
I don’t understand. If the Bishop has invited two Fraternity priests to set up an apostolate he are obviously not against the TLM.
The Rosary is my only response.
Au Revoir
How sad that, again, we end up slanging each other. Don’t we realize this is just what the Enemy wants?
—
This post started out giving us information about what has happened to Father R, and it has degenerated into a series of comments that shore up two opposing position.
—
None of us know what happened. We suspect the truth: that Father R is being persecuted, and that the Bishop and his minions are using the law to punish him.
—
Father has taken the high road: he has accepted what has happened and will mostly be on his knees asking for strength to bear this trial until Our Lord’s Will is accomplished.
—
We have expressed our horror, and our sorrow, but do we now spend our precious time picking apart each others comments, looking for ways to get our opinions approved, but not another’s?
—
Let’s either bring forth some new information, some constructive and instructive opinions, or let’s move on.
Thank you, Barbara! AMEN!!!!!
Barbara,
Mine is not 1 of 2 opposing positions. Mine is the Catholic position: innocence until proven guilty, judgement according to Catholic principles, ecclesiastical rights and practices.
For the other party, if I had taken that approach I would have read the dockets in the case, with pleadings from both sides, before citing anything the Diocese had to say; as one is never a prudent advocate when he cites only one side of the story.
My repeated calls for the facts and better knowledge before judgement, is thus not 1 side of an argument. It is the whole and only side of reason in this debate.
Michael Matt,
You have an article today on your Remnant Website page about Father, since you know of him personally, a great piece of journalism would be publishing the facts about the dispute between the Diocese and Father.
For all,
I remind everyone that canonized saints never kept financial records: St. John Bosco, St Maximilian Kolbe, St. Don Orione, etc.
If you are a fool, then you can easily be fooled by the Modernist, who wanting to remove a Catholic priest from ministry, brings charges against him which regard things which are not of themselves pertinent to the moral law, but only violations of accepted human practices. Like the Pharisees of old who swallow camels and straining gnats, those who propose such arguments are impervious to calls to repentance, propriety, or balance. In the face of the preaching of error and heresy and immorality, the burden of the proof lies on those who accuse priests who preach the truth, esp when the charges regard things which are violations of less things.
Indignus has show little understanding parish finances, evinces not a little envy for the riches of the Church which a pastor must use.
Everything a priest does for the good of souls, the honor of God, etc. such as taking out expensive newspaper ads, is perfectly justifiable. Nor is a priest to be convicted merely because the accounts had different account numbers, or that the planned repairs were never completed (it is a law in the code that projects cannot be undertaken until the necessary funds to complete them are available, thus Father’s non use of the monies for the repairs is not of itself a fault, rather it is the expected duty of a pastor).
Thus, NOTHING AT ALL which Indignus had the gall to publish on this thread, merits the conclusion in favor of the Diocese. You need to know all the facts first, and certainly not only all the facts before you make a judgement but also before you publish damning charges against a priest in his darkest hour.
I hate those who kick a man when he is down, and I loath those who do this to priests who preach the right faith.
Dear Roman Watcher, please stop accusing Indignus Famulus of what they are clearly not guilty of. IF have shown us how they uphold the Faith and the moral law. There is clearly no intent to do any harm to Fr Rodriguez, quite the contrary. They have mentioned something which is in the public domain – and to address that fact is more helpful to Fr Rodriguez and souls generally than to fail to address it. I wasn’t aware of the lawsuit prior to reading of it here. In the light of all the circumstances and what we can learn of Fr Rodriguez online, scepticism would be the most likely response of the readership. The truth cannot lead people astray.
The only issue that might arise as to whether to mention the lawsuit in a particular situation is that of prudential judgment. In the situation of this particular blog, which would support Fr Rodriguez and his ministry, I see no objective reason not to deal with such an important public matter. In fact, it is most likely another example of persecution of Fr Rodriguez, and it is good to know more of the story that is in the public domain. It makes me more sure of our moral duty to pray for Fr Rodriguez – and the sins of the Hierarchy (as this holy priest asks us in his last sermon.
In fact, there are similarities with accusations made (latterly withdrawn, I understand) against the Fr Manelli and (former) leadership of the FFI.
Please do not make any further accusations against a person’s moral character. IF have shown nothing but moral uprightness on this Forum. Your accusations are groundless and misplaced.
I can understand the hurt and anger in respect of the apparent persecution of another holy priest but Indignus Famulus are innocent of any part in same, and on the contrary, are clearly actively working for the good of the Church and souls, and fully supporting the persecuted and orthodox priests and bishops. Any accusations directed at them is clearly misdirected.
Amen to you too, Roman Watcher!!!
Dear Lynda, LeGrande Derangement, Evermindful and others of like mind,
It occurred to us just now, how very true it is, that it is not what goes into a man that matters most, but what comes forth from his heart.
___
Despite the abusive responses of some who would attempt to silence others by contemptuous words and false accusations of sin, where we know none exists, we’re still very grateful to Louie for providing a place where ideas can be shared freely. We hope you and others who post and read here, will join us in praying .for the Graces to gently rebuke others, whenever possible; to more strongly rebuke them whenever necessary, but never, for a single moment, to fail in loving them -as much when they are persecuting unjustly, as when they are delighting us, as you all have just done.
___
There is no problem that cannot be solved by praying the Rosary, sister Lucia was told by Our Blessed Mother. May Our Lady hear our petition to help remove all resentment from the hearts of everyone here who feels it, and replace it with genuine compassion and remorse where needed, born of awareness of the who our real enemy is, who prowls the word, seeking the ruin of souls. Let forgiveness even before any personal satisfaction of grievances, drive him away, in the name of Our Saving, Lord, Jesus Christ.
God bless us all.
A serious question that needs to be asked and answered by Catholics is why is Fr. Michael Rodriguez out in Diocese of EL PASO but the FSSP is allowed in the Diocese of EL PASO? What does Fr. Michael Rodriguez say, think or do that the Priests of the FSSP will not say,think or do? Clearly it is not only a question of the Mass. Think about it. Fr. Michael Rodriguez has publicly spoken clearly on Fatima. I do not how clearly he understands and questions Vatican II but I wonder if he is out because of his views on Fatima and Vatican II. I am not saying that is why but I am asking.
This should be a less contentious topic, since Father Rodriguez obviously believes it is important enough to risk losing his priestly ministry over; and the questions don’t concern things that leave us speculating about anyone’s involvement, because both sides have stated their positions publicly, and presumably the applicable laws are knowable.
___
The first time we saw Father Rodriguez, was watching a video of him addressing his local Counci meeting, which had us cheering from our living room, in awe that a priest had actually gone out in public like that, to declare homosexual acts sinful, and denounce a Mayor and a council which was pushing for homosexual marriage. It was awesome.
___
What we didn’t know at the time, was that his Bishop was apparently facing what he saw as a crisis at that same moment, which in the end resulted in at least two pubic announcements –from Bishop Ochoa:
___
” The diocese had received “credible information and documents” showing Father Rodriguez had failed to comply with diocesan policies.” and:
“The Rev. Michael Rodriguez was transferred to a new parish because his stance on morality and the upcoming recall election “raised serious issues regarding whether his participation could be attributed to the Diocese of El Paso” and his parish.”
=====
According to Wickipedia, Bishop Ochoa is shy and averse to public speaking, and yet his positions on morality are well known: “Ochoa .. believes that homosexuals should remain celibate in accordance with Church doctrine requiring all unmarried people to remain celibate; he believes that the priest shortage will be solved through faith rather than through allowing a married priesthood; and fears that teaching children about condoms in a school setting would send a “mixed message” regarding pre-marital sex.”
___
That may rule out any prejudice on his part, against the actual moral teachings Father was so vocally defending and presenting to the public.
And, since one fellow poster noted that the FSSP was given a Parish in the Diocese(the net says Immaculate Conception downtown, where the TLM is scheduled daily),there also doesn’t appear to be enough prejudice on his part against the TLM itself, to cause his reaction to Father’s protests. (of course only those involved know how true that is, and the FSSP doesn’t vocally protest VII and the N.O. from what we’ve heard)
___
“In his columns, after the transfer, Fr. Rodriguez stated his views saying that all Catholics are “obligated to undo the wrong” and fight homosexuality.”
-In one titled “Every Catholic Must Oppose Certain Things.” he wrote “Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.” Fr. Rodriguez ended calling homosexuality, “An unequivocal intrinsic moral evil,” and adding: “frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences.”
___
So it appears he felt his duty owed to God to publicly lead the protest against these evils, overrode his duty to obey his Bishop’s orders.
And it appears the Bishop was mostly concerned about the means Father used to protest them. (as Wicki also mentioned his desire to “get-along” with the locals was very important to him,)
___
Our questions: Does the Church require a priest to limited himself to his pulpit, urging fellow citizens to publicly do as he WOULD do himself, while remaining more on the sidelines, praying in front of abortion clinics, quietly demonstrating, and voting? Or does he have an obligation to do more to please God, especially these days? What laws about this are there to guide his conscience, and when is it right to ignore them? Were the Bishop’s concerns legitimate and weighty ENOUGH,–the violations of Church policies and Federal laws; fear that the Church would be charged with contributing to a political campaign, and likely lose tax-exempt status?
What does the Vatican policy say about religious and civil actions? And what is best for the “common good” and the greatest good–of souls? Lot’s of questions.
__
Off the top of our heads, it seems when a city is facing this threat of first-time legislation for so-called gay marriage, there’s a much greater need for a strong, concerted effort to protest it before it becomes law. That adds weight to the Bishop’s responsibilities as well. Personally, we’d like to see all the parishes forget tax-exempt status, so they can toss all concerns for losing it, and that excuse would disappear for those who hide behind it.
-We can certainly see the motivations for what Father did, and his level of passion explains why he would feel more compelled to lead his people, than to stay on the sidelines. And lastly, if the Bishop was timidly not speaking out, there was another void to fill, which has to factor in.
___
The least we can do is not let his sacrifices go to waste, by discussing the issues at stake,- learning from the experience all we can about rightly formed consciences, and Church laws and duties of religious and private citizens..
oops, meant to post this at the end. will repost it there.
This should be a less contentious topic, since Father Rodriguez obviously believes it is important enough to risk losing his priestly ministry over; and the questions don’t concern things that leave us speculating about anyone’s involvement, because both sides have stated their positions publicly, and presumably the applicable laws are knowable.
___
The first time we saw Father Rodriguez, was watching a video of him addressing his local Counci meeting, which had us cheering from our living room, in awe that a priest had actually gone out in public like that, to declare homosexual acts sinful, and denounce a Mayor and a council which was pushing for homosexual marriage. It was awesome.
___
What we didn’t know at the time, was that his Bishop was apparently facing what he saw as a crisis at that same moment, which in the end resulted in at least two pubic announcements –from Bishop Ochoa:
___
” The diocese had received “credible information and documents” showing Father Rodriguez had failed to comply with diocesan policies.” and:
“The Rev. Michael Rodriguez was transferred to a new parish because his stance on morality and the upcoming recall election “raised serious issues regarding whether his participation could be attributed to the Diocese of El Paso” and his parish.”
=====
According to Wickipedia, Bishop Ochoa is shy and averse to public speaking, and yet his positions on morality are well known: “Ochoa .. believes that homosexuals should remain celibate in accordance with Church doctrine requiring all unmarried people to remain celibate; he believes that the priest shortage will be solved through faith rather than through allowing a married priesthood; and fears that teaching children about condoms in a school setting would send a “mixed message” regarding pre-marital sex.”
___
That may rule out any prejudice on his part, against the actual moral teachings Father was so vocally defending and presenting to the public.
And, since one fellow poster noted that the FSSP was given a Parish in the Diocese(the net says Immaculate Conception downtown, where the TLM is scheduled daily),there also doesn’t appear to be enough prejudice on his part against the TLM itself, to cause his reaction to Father’s protests. (of course only those involved know how true that is, and the FSSP doesn’t vocally protest VII and the N.O. from what we’ve heard)
___
“In his columns, after the transfer, Fr. Rodriguez stated his views saying that all Catholics are “obligated to undo the wrong” and fight homosexuality.”
-In one titled “Every Catholic Must Oppose Certain Things.” he wrote “Any Catholic who supports homosexual acts is, by definition, committing a mortal sin and placing himself/herself outside of communion with the Roman Catholic Church.” Fr. Rodriguez ended calling homosexuality, “An unequivocal intrinsic moral evil,” and adding: “frighteningly, if the majority chooses to deny the objective moral order, then we will all suffer the pestiferous consequences.”
___
So it appears he felt his duty owed to God to publicly lead the protest against these evils, overrode his duty to obey his Bishop’s orders.
And it appears the Bishop was mostly concerned about the means Father used to protest them. (as Wicki also mentioned his desire to “get-along” with the locals was very important to him,)
___
Our questions: Does the Church require a priest to limited himself to his pulpit, urging fellow citizens to publicly do as he WOULD do himself, while remaining more on the sidelines, praying in front of abortion clinics, quietly demonstrating, and voting? Or does he have an obligation to do more to please God, especially these days? What laws about this are there to guide his conscience, and when is it right to ignore them? Were the Bishop’s concerns legitimate and weighty ENOUGH,–the violations of Church policies and Federal laws; fear that the Church would be charged with contributing to a political campaign, and likely lose tax-exempt status?
What does the Vatican policy say about religious and civil actions? And what is best for the “common good” and the greatest good–of souls? Lot’s of questions.
__
Off the top of our heads, it seems when a city is facing this threat of first-time legislation for so-called gay marriage, there’s a much greater need for a strong, concerted effort to protest it before it becomes law. That adds weight to the Bishop’s responsibilities as well. Personally, we’d like to see all the parishes forget tax-exempt status, so they can toss all concerns for losing it, and that excuse would disappear for those who hide behind it.
-We can certainly see the motivations for what Father did, and his level of passion explains why he would feel more compelled to lead his people, than to stay on the sidelines. And lastly, if the Bishop was timidly not speaking out, there was another void to fill, which has to factor in.
___
The least we can do is not let his sacrifices go to waste, by discussing the issues at stake,- learning from the experience all we can about rightly formed consciences, and Church laws and duties of religious and private citizens..
Regarding why Fr Rodriguez is being punished while the FSSP has since been invited in the diocese…I would say that certain things are tolerated in, say, the FSSP and ICKSP, such as offering the TLM, so long as the ecclesiastical muzzle remains firmly in place. Fr. Rodriguez was preaching on the superiority of the TLM to the Novus Ordo, as well as other post V2 disastrous policies. In short, Fr Rodriguez was saying things just a little too clearly for the powers that be. And this from a diocesan priest! No way they would tolerate this indefinately. The hammer was bound to fall sooner or later.
There’s plenty more persecution to come. Groups such as the FSSP and the ICKSP may think things will be fine and dandy so long as they keep the ecclesiastical muzzle firmly in place. But things are heating up. Eventually all approved Ecclesia Dei groups will be either shut down (ala FFI),or forced to make compromises that betray tradition. People are all going to have to make
serious decisions and choices. I wish there was a coordinated effort between them ALL to ditch the muzzle and come out guns blazing and preaching the
whole truth. Imagine this coming from all the traditional enclaves around the world. Imagine Burke leading it. Imagine all the tradition leading good bishops simultaneously giving the SSPX facilities within their diocese.
I can dream can’t I?
Indignus,
Not only can a bishop not precept a priest not to speak publically about the teachings of the Church, he sins mortally if he precepts such a thing; and if the priest by his public stance on the Faith (namely has some public reputation to merit others to hear him, such as, for example, he has spoken before on the topic, or crisis comes to pass making it public debate), then the priest himself would sin MORTALLY by silence.
As for policies, there are no such policies which trump the divine obligations of a priest, religious, or layman in regards to preaching the Gospel.
It seems that you are trying, though much more mildly, to give grounds for questioning the motives of the priest; a scurrilous thing to do. You perhaps do not understand, that by the time of ordination, any priest knows quite well who is and who is not a homo in the Diocese where he serves, if he has paid any attention and has any discernment (which not all have, I admit).
The acceptance of homosexuality among the clergy has already reached heretical levels. Any priest today who preached as Father did would be similarly and immediately removed. If you don’t think so, it is perhaps because you are a layman and have no close friendships with priests who would admit the truth to you about it.
Roman,
We’re a little too busy to ignore you right now, can you come back later?
🙂 🙂
I’ve got to step in here and ask you, Roman Watcher to stop telling us who is in mortal sin, and who isn’t.
—
Enough is enough. Your opinions are your own, and of course you are following your own conscience in what you say. But in my opinion you go too far in your criticism of the state of the souls of others.
—
We are brothers and sisters. We have the same Father, and the same Mother. This is true. We are members of Christ’s Mystical Body.
—
Can we read what we have written, with that in mind, before we add our comments?
I’ve been in the ‘trad’ business for over 30 years now. It seems there is always contention from some place or other. However, perhaps IF should consider that they made their point with their first comment, which some think inappropriate. It is not necessary to continue haranguing all here with the details of the bishop and others involved. We are all able to check the records. There is no need to keep on with lengthy comments that are basically repeating the same criticism. Most people who have been involved for some time in the crusade for the traditional Mass and Church are quite wary of false prophets. Can you not let Louie determine the tone for his own blog? He put this article in place in defense of the good priest.
Dear Barbara,
I have no idea who is in mortal sin, I have said nothing about that.
As for what I have said on the quality of mortal acts, its Catholic teaching, not my opinions.
I have acted here as I have done, because I have the duty before God to do so.
And yes, I am particularly concerned that the errors of laicism and anti-clericalism have so spread about that you not infrequently find them even among those who claim they are upholding the opposite.
Some, however, are so obtuse as to insist on their vice and sin in public, even when rebuked; and others don’t find such objection objectionable, but only the one rebuking objectionable.
I am entitled to my opinion, but it not my opinion, that both such are not acting in accord with the virtues upheld and taught and exemplified by Christ Jesus Our Lord.
By the way, if you don’t like his public rebuke of sinners (Mt 23:33), then have the sincerity to admit that you are not His disciple.
I’m sorry I attacked you, Roman Watcher.
—
From the Psalms: “Let my mouth be filled with praise that I may sing Thy glory and Thy greatness all the day long.”
—
This morning I asked myself the following questions:
1) Why is it important that I express my opinions?
—
2) Why is it important that my opinions are accepted?
—
3) Why do I get angry when my opinions are rejected?
—
4) Why do I persist in trying a method for attaining holiness which is not the tried and true method?
—
The one thing necessary is to save my own soul. And by extension the souls of others, for love of God. I must do that in the way that has been tried, and found perfect: Love God with my whole heart/mind/strength, and my neighbour for love of Him.
—
It has been said: By the love they have for each other you shall know them.
—
I don’t have that love for others here when I forget that this is the way ‘others’ will know that I (we) are Christians.
—
I forget that there are ‘others’ who read these posts, and the comments. What impression are they getting from my comments? Not always ‘the love that they have for each other.’
—
So back to the one thing necessary. Do I want to stand before Jesus a second after my physical death and have to explain my words?
—
I will read here, but comment seldom.
Dear MaryKpkj,
We’re open to healthy criticism, and do tend to lengthy comments, which is a fault -again repeated here .-sorry, but your points were all important ones, and we both think and talk in compound sentences. We’re working on it, though..
🙂 🙂
So thank you for your honesty. . Maybe using points will shorten this:
__
1. Regarding the “contention” in places, and here- Thicker skin at times, okay, but recently, with that one in particular who crosses the line, No. He as driven away valuable contributors to this com section, with deliberate intent and by ongoing periodic harassment over several months, using the same, provably- false accusations. The very calumny and slander he slings at others, are his favorite tools. If that is your idea of normal “contention”, we disagree, and don’t think it should be ignored. We leave it to Louie to moderate.
__
2. As to Louie determining the “tone for his own blog”. Are you suggesting if he writes a negative-sounding article, we should limit ourselves to negative comments? Are you not then reducing us to a Verrecchio P.R. staff–just a bunch of “yes- men”? How does that line up with Louie’s stated intentions to foster discussions, even heated ones, so people come to know the truth about what is going on in the world today, and the truths of the Faith are more fully made known?
___
3. Our tedious, multiple responses of yesterday, would normally have not been posted to him , but we finally decided to try to help that situation by explaining how obvious his bag of tricks had become- bullying, twisting words, misquoting to misrepresent intentions and motives, implying sin– before outrightly accusing of it, all designed to attack the person and their claim to Catholicity, to berate and demean them, before demanding acquiescing responses under pain of further false accusations and false claims of being unjustly disrespected himself, while he speaks for God. Check back a few months, and you will not find such an effort on our part regarding him before this. But you will find evidence of our statements about his reprehensible behaviors, especially regarding Berto, who said goodbye to everyone here, and left because of his lies and harassment carried out over 3 months. We’re sorry it bored you and others, but we gave it one good shot, hoping some of it might get through, and it seemed self-defeating to announce that intention in advance. But we’re done there, now..
___
4. You wrote you are all “quite aware of false prophets”? Sorry, we don’t understand that inference. What false prophet? Father? His Bishop? Our posts were to open up a two-sided, factual discussion that we saw was totally absent here, regarding what led to Father’s current situation.
__
Potential causes were sought out and listed by us, because all we saw on the blog were the usual battle volleys: –“it’s all due to hatred of the TLM” and “the Bishop must be a homo who hates any outspoke priest who dares teaches what the Church does about it” and Father is most certainly another victim of (insert usual list here, beginning with FFI)
__
While we’re WELL aware that those are all very legitimate charges in specific cases of the past, and that this priest has apparently poured himself out in service; we must object stenuously to those accusations against all superiors being bundled into a bag everyone hauls out with a knee-jerk reaction -every time someone announces another traditional priest is transferred or put on leave or sabbatical.
__
And when that “bag” then becomes the only one posters are “allowed” to draw from, unless they want to bear group-persecution, from other posters, THAT is as great an assault on truth as what the modernists often do, and becomes a tool which Satan uses to discredit and divide us. . And this place becomes nothing more than a schoolyard of cliques and bullies instead of a place for mature adults to converse.
___
5. We’re not sure what you mean by the “trad business” but we’ve been living through this persecution for over 50 years now, battling harder and harder as we uncoverd more and more truth, and endured seeing more and more loved ones being seduced by the misrepresentation of it from within the Church. We were told many times way back in the 70’s and 80’s, by Bishops, pastors, principal, etc, that we were the “only ones” objecting, and at the time, there actually were few others willing to speak up, because that’s how our generation was taught to behave with religious superiors. So perhaps we’ve at least got the equvalent of the 30 years experience you mentioned, being slow-learners as we were.
___
6. Here’s our point.
We remember seeing an individual get harsly attacked for simply asking a group of fellow Faithful Cathoics, “what is going on with Father Caropi?”,-back when he was put on leave because of some “charges”. We had been awed by his radio talks, and were incredulous ourselves at the time. WHAT a conversion story, intellect, Faith, gifts to preach and inspire and all with such genuine fervor! This MUST be some anti-Catholic feminist, trying to bring him down for hurting one of her causes. But guess what, the poor woman who was so maligned by his VERY ardent supporters, she ended up being made a multiple victim, whom we are sure will carry those scars to her grave, hopefully forgiving those who multiplied her sufferings I their ignorance and thoughtlessness..
__
His order later announced that he had broken his vows on numerous counts- including “poverty” by refusing to divest of his properties, motorcycles, boats etc. He said he preferred to leave the “control of the Church” and started his “Black sheep” blog to “reclaim his reputation” We were still waiting patiently to see if he was able to do that, praying that if he was caught in Satan’s grip, he would be released from it.
__
But he then sued the woman, not for defamation, but for “breach of contract”, because he had had her sign a “non-disclosure” statement when working with him, and her “outing him” breached that agreement!.
So why do we so-called fellow Catholics, behave that way? Because we see a “good priest” and make an untouchable idol out of him, to which any victim gets sacrificed. And from what we just saw here in the last two days, we’d bet most would have joined in those attacks on her as well. So we don’t jump on those bandwagons, despite our continued love for good priests and our full awareness of what a precious gift each and every one of them is to the Church. We keep an open mind, aware of human nature on both sides of any issue.
__
There’s another offshoot of this problem. Priests who are victimizers and traditional, are able to victize longer, because they know they can hide behind this wall of prejudiced protectors. If they are innocent until proven guilty, their accusers must be, as well. And father is innocent by that standard as well, but so is his Bishop.
7. So if what you’re proposing here is true, and that “tone”-support is what Louie wants and requires whenever he posts, then we likely won’t be staying around to witness what grows out of that mentality, and you won’t have to endure any more of our posts.–Two problems solved.
___
We like Louie, but that’s not what he claimed he was about. We’ve encountered more than a few good voices of reason here, and others seeking truth who seem to comment only occasionally, perhaps not daring to brave these individual -assaults and mindsets against truth.. We hope the wiser voices prevail, if truth turns out to be Louie’s real objective, after all.
___
8. Other than dealing with the problem-poster, our two factual posts were meant to counter that total absence of balance. We first checked to see if there was any evidence in published reports, to verify the charges posted here. But the must-be “pro-homo” Bishop turned out to have been preachng against homosexual sin, enough that even Wickipedia listed that as his offiial “position”, and despite his personal aversion to public speaking. He invited the FSSP to come into his diocese where they provide daily TLMs, so what does that say about his suppossed “hatred of the TLM? Several other posters asked that question as well. Ergo the “details of the Bishop” you complained about. It was not a repetition of any charges. The other facts presented in that last post spoke of what really took place and pointed to the real questions we should all be asking–which were the reason Father bravely sacrificed his ministry. Sorry to hear you feel “harangued” by those, as we consider them very pertinent to the remaining questions of –how far should any good priest take his ministry today?. Should they ALL BE following Father’s lead? And, if not, why not? .
___
Hope this helps answer your questions, and again, sorry for another lengthy post, but these things really matter to us, and you seemed to care, too.
Dear Mary,
We responded at #37. God Bless. 🙂 🙂
Lots of questions! I’ll try to answer a couple. I meant by being in the ‘trad’ business that I have attended exclusively the TLM since I was a teen, and I am now a nana to several tiny people. The early years were difficult and there was always some group or other having their own rules for Catholic life that often bordered on the bizarre, such as separating men and women in the Church; walking backward out of the Church so as not to turn on God; preparing for the three days of darkness caused by the comet Kahoutek (sp?), etc. There were lots of characters, and these were the prophets of doom I was referring to. By that, I meant that gradually the Fr. Corapis and the Kahoutek people are shown for what they are. If Fr. Rodriguez is guilty of serious money mismanagement his diocese will make it public, as the ‘c’atholics love to show the errors of traditional Catholics.
I think that even if you believe that RW was harsh with you and others, his opinion is still his opinion, and Church law is still Church law. Maybe the best way to handle posters who seem offensive is to not respond. I know that if I’m at a social function and I think someone is out of line, I find a different group to chat with. It’s generally pointless to bring up their errors, and sometimes they are really just errors in my perception.
That said, I guess I shouldn’t have responded to your posts earlier… 😉
FOR THE RECORD and for the sake of justice and charity to Fr. Michael Rodriguez, I believe it important to speak the FACTS of the old accusation against him of mishandling Church funds and not rely on the enemy of Christ i.e. pagan newspapers. After Indignus posted the news clippings I went directly to a source extremely close to the situation who I knew had all the facts. Below is a summary of what actually happened…and to sum it up, what Bishop Ochoa did to Fr. Michael was calumny pure and simple. There is a reason the Bishop was REMOVED from his diocese…a diocese infected with modernism and sodomite supporting prelates. Here is the truth: (below)
1) The truth is that parishioners were saving money to renovate the sanctuary of their parish. The bishop did not agree with this and asked Father to turn over all the money. Father obediently did. The bishop then kept the money and has still not returned it. Some of the faithful even sued the bishop because he had their money and would not give it back and would not even talk to them about it. But see, very few people even know the bishop was sued by the laity because this was not plastered all over the media.
2) If anyone knew how Father lived, they would know he did not embezzle money. Some of his clothes are tattered, his car makes a rattling noise (which is a 20year old Saturn), he is very thin an eats little, and practices much penance. He does not eat out, does not go to the movies, owns no cell phone or television, does not have the internet, etc… I could go and on with this list. But the point is anyone who actually know him and sees how he lives his life, realize this man does not embezzle money. Those who suggest otherwise are ignorant of the most basic things about his person and therefore commit the sins of rash judgment and calumny – for which God will hold them accountable. They would be better served not saying anything on matters that they really do not know anything about.
Fr. Michael Rodriguez is a saint in the making. Anyone who has listened to his sermons, seen how he fights against the evil PPH demonic spirit, and even endures persecution from his own Church can see this. It was the constant prayers of the St. VIncent Ferrer Foundation, the fruit of Fr. Michael’s ministry, that brought the FSSP to El Paso. But the FSSP have to keep their mouth shut about the infection of Vatican II which is probably why the Bishop allowed them. Fr. Michael is fighting for the restoration of the authentic Catholic Mass of ages…not some tripe, banal, made up in a trattoria Mass by Modernists. He fights for Truth, For Christ, For Holy Mother Church. God bless~
From yet another source close to the situation who is a devout Traditional Catholic: Keep in mind that El Paso has a very strong and very vocal “Gay Lobby” and dominated politically by “Gay Activists.” The former Bishop (Ochoa) was one of those who “goes along to get along” and publicly denounced Father Rodriguez’s strong stand for the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. That former Bishop (Ochoa) is also a “disciple” of Cardinal Mahoney formerly the ranking prelate of the Arch Diocese of Los Angeles. Cardinal Mahoney was his mentor. When the former Bishop was suddenly yanked out of El Paso, most abruptly, he was sent to a Diocese in central California, “so happy to be home” he said.
Thank you, MMC.
Dear MaryK,
Thanks for your honesty. Guess we just disagree in this one particular case.
And of course you’re entitled to do that.
God Bless.
Dear MMC,
You just made our point better than anyone else has. Thank you.
Would you have done this research to clear him of those charges in the “court” of public opinion, had we not brought the matter up? People who searched as we did, having less time, do not get this other side of the story.
We’re delighted to see this other information, and THIS is the beauty of discussing these things here. God Bless Father R.
I think the lessons learned here are doing the research for both sides of the story before presenting it in public, that the pagan, secular press is not our friend in any way, and that most bishops in the US are infected with modernism and should not be trusted over any priest or clergy who presents themselves in such a holy manner as Fr. Michael. And yes, God bless this holy, holy man of God. We are utterly blessed to have him in our midst. I recommend all the readers of Louie’s blog becoming members of the St. Vincent Ferrer Foundation which helps promote the restoration of Holy Mother Church in all Her Traditions, teachings, liturgy and glory. Peace and goodness to you all!
Yes, it is very clear from Fr Michael Rodriguez’s sermons (available online) that he is a holy priest who preaches the unchangeable truths of the Faith and morality – and instructs us correctly for the betterment of our eternal souls. He is a beautiful light of Christ in the darkness.
And it is good that the false accusations against Fr Rodriguez have been dealt with here. This will help readers to see that there is no cover up or avoidance of relevant matters. The truth qua the truth does not harm. Thank God this is a blog where the truth is not suppressed, and people can speak and enquire with bona fides.
MMC,
I am glad that you have given the testimony you know of, and that it has fully supported EVERYTHING I have said about the case, in refutation of Indignus.
I think Indignus needs now to apologize both to Father and to myself.
I await that public apology on this very thread…
His “The Enemy is Within: The Kiss of Judas Iscariot” sermon is very good.
MMC said ” Fr. Michael is fighting for the restoration of the authentic Catholic Mass of ages…not some tripe, banal, made up in a trattoria Mass by Modernists. He fights for Truth, For Christ, For Holy Mother Church.”
Well said MMC. Fr. Michael was ousted because he spoke pure Catholic Truth. His words are a sword to those who do not want to hear the Truth. “But the servant is not greater than the Master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.” John 15:20
PUBLIC APOLOGY !!!!!!
I would like to make a PUBLIC APOLOGY…..
erm….uh….
Wait a minute !!
I never said anything…
Is that prevenient grace ??
Dear Roman Watcher,
The best answer we can give you is the truth- that we believe Father Rodriguez would have no problem with anything we posted about him, and more likely would be appreciative of our efforts to open an honest discussion, so we and others could better understand his past trials, discuss the issues involved; look for answers, and learn what we can from it all in the interest of passing on the truth to others, and further shoring up our own convictions. We also believe he would sense our love and respect for him, with none of the hurt you presumed on his behalf, which you apparently believe excuses your exhibitions of wrath towards us.
__
We have been and still are sincerely praying for you, despite the hateful manners in which you have addressed us and others, a number of times. In truth, we would love it if you could look at what you have done, and see the numerous ways in which you have been practicing all the things you have falsely accused us and others of doing recently; and sincerely repent, feeling a driving need to apoligize for attacking all those innocent people so unjustly– at which point we could have the great joy of telling you that your willingness to do so is all that is necessary as far as we are concerned, and may even prevent further problems.
__
No doubt this is not the response you were seeking, but perhaps if you give it some thought, it will help you to let it all go, as there appears to be no better way to resolve it for now. Please pray for us, too, as we do for you.
God Bless you always, sincerely in His love,
indignus famulus
Dear MMC,
I have no evidence to give me reason to doubt your veracity nor do I challenge the facts you presented. I do think that one of your conclusions is problematic: “… I think the lessons learned here are doing the research for both sides of the story before presenting it in public…” From what I understand of your other side of the “story” is your statements: “…I went directly to a source extremely close to the situation who I knew had all the facts…” and, “From yet another source close to the situation who is a devout Traditional Catholic…” MMC, no offense but, reading non-attributed evidence from an anonymous blogger does not give definitive proof in my understanding of the word. The “facts” you presented are actually additional leads to follow for those with the time, resources and desire.
Indignus,
You are totally out of touch with reality!
But yes, I will pray for you…
The six months has passed, any word on Father?
Thank you MMC. It is obvious that Father Rodriguez has been falsely persecuted. It makes you wonder why the Church would be quick to bring charges against him and send him on a sabbatical while priests who’ve been known to abuse children were allowed to continue with their priestly duty and afforded protection.
I have read somewhere that it has been extended to September 2015. Poor Fr Rodriguez. What an injustice.