Posted on 06/05/2016 8:50:18 AM PDT by detective
In our Diocese (Camden, NJ), insurance covered most of the costs of what you correctly term “homosexual Priests”. The mergers really were financial in nature.
It's by a lay person working under the reign of Bunny Law.
I blame the Kennedys. They co-opted the Boston archbishops to avoid having their sleaze and naked political ambitions brought to light among the RCC voters in MA.
Law's predecessor, Medeiros, prevented Catholics from fleeing to parochial schools in the midst of academically disastrous forced school "integration".
Ticked off a number of people that only wanted the best for their children.
And Law? Law was tone-deaf, and had to flee to the Vatican to avoid prosecution. He has to avoid Boston visitors after being constantly harangued by them.
They need to be kicked out and fined for trespassing. Let them go create their own “church” as they have indicated. Good riddance to them.
St. Frances Xavier Cabrini Church parishioner Heather Santosuosso of Scituate walks through the church Sunday, Feb. 8, 2015, with her dog Cabrini during Santosuosso's vigil shift.
St. Frances Xavier Cabrini Church parishioner Heather Santosuosso of Scituate does a puzzle at the church Sunday, Feb. 8, 2015, during her vigil shift.
No much different looking than the muslims squatters in Europe's Catholic Churches, except these people should know better.
“In order to pay off the lawsuits for abuse, the decisions were made, not by the strength of a diocese, but by how much the real estate is worth.”
In Real Estate location is everything. If you have to sell fewer parishes rather than more parishes, how is that a bad move in itself?
“The parish was not closed because it was not being supported.”
You committing two mistakes:
1) The parish was UNSUPPORTED. The very article itself tells of only 100 or so people - who are now essentially Protestants - trying to keep the parish open against the will of the bishop. This shows support for the parish was small and few of the attendees who continued after the closing were even orthodox - and that hints at a very heterodox and spiritually sick parish.
2) You mistakenly assume - apparently - that this “a reorganization necessitated by the financial settlements after the clergy sex-abuse scandal” means exactly the same thing as “The parish was closed to sell the real estate to pay for the legal settlements caused by homosexual priests.”
The simple fact is that most of the lawsuit settlements were paid off years ago. The reorganization, however, would not be complete until the parish was closed just as it was ordered to be 11 years ago. The big lawsuit was already settled with 552 victims in 2003. The parish was not shuttered until 2005. Seventy-five parishes were closed. The puny group of now Protestant parishioners who illegally held the property for those 11 years closed out their “vigil” with an illicit “Mass” said by an illicitly married Catholic priest and spoke of their “revolution of faith” and how they’re celebrating “the birth of a new church and a new way of thinking”. Protestants.
A lot of those parishes with high real estate evaluations were an integral part of their communities. The parishioners gave generously to the Church, so these Churches more than paid there way. Some ran schools. The Church assumed the people from those parishes would join Churches in other towns. I had some co-workers back then (I lived in SE MA back when it happened) who opted instead to switch to an Orthodox Church.
They closed 75 parishes. That’s better than closing 125. That people left is irrelevant. People would have left no matter what was decided. When you’re closing parishes no one is going to be happy about it. And there is no such thing as “more than paid there way” in this situation.
Will the next story be that the congregation have become Masons?
For my area, most of the parish churches have been held as local corporations for some time.
Same with my LCMS churches.
However, in the case of the Davenport Diocese, that caused all sorts of issues when the abuse pay outs started. The Diocese claimed it didn’t have that much for assets, while still trying to maintain control of the local parishes. One of the lawyers was going to challenge that in court, but the Diocese paid up.
If you want to make you head hurt, go look into the laws of incorporation. You (and most parish members) not are legally members of the corporation called the Roman Catholic Church, or even the local parish. It is an area that I fear will be used to take control of churches one of these days.
When you say the parishioners are “Protestants” are you meaning that they have become members of one of the Protestant denominations, or that they are “protestants” because they are protesting?
I did not see any reference in the article that the parishioners have rejected the tenants of Catholicism.
And here’s more info on this protestant community’s rent-a-priest, Rev. Terry McDonough, a married Massachusetts priest who has long been at odds with Catholic leadership:
http://archive.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/032102_priests.htm
What guy?
“When you say the parishioners are “Protestants” are you meaning that they have become members of one of the Protestant denominations, or that they are “protestants” because they are protesting?”
They are receiving illicit sacraments from an illicitly operating priest. Whether protesting or Protestantizing they are headed in the same direction if they’re embracing a “new church” and their “revolution of faith”.
“I did not see any reference in the article that the parishioners have rejected the tenants of Catholicism.”
You don’t have to.
I agree, definite non sequitor!!
Can’t anyone figure out to go back to before the rot surfaced, when the teaching and general practice of the Church was still true, i.e. Before the heretical Vatican-2!
"These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy church and him who said that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics); we also bear in mind what was prophesied about the church by Hosea when he said, I shall betroth you to me in faithfulness and you shall know the Lord; and we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death."
(Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the Three Chapters)
------------------------
The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome; thus Truth itself promises, through whom are true, whatsoever things are true: “The gates of hell will not prevail against it” [Mt 16:18]. The same Son declares that He obtained the effect of this promise from the Father by prayers, by saying to Peter: “Simon, behold Satan etc.” [Lk 23:31]. Therefore, will there be anyone so foolish as to dare to regard His prayer as in anyway vain whose being willing is being able? By the See of the chief of the Apostles, namely by the Roman Church, through the same Peter, as well as through his successors, have not the comments of all the heretics been disapproved, rejected, and overcome, and the hearts of the brethren in the faith of Peter which so far neither has failed, nor up to the end will fail, been strengthened?
(Pope St. Leo IX, Apostolic Letter In Terra Pax; Denz. 351)
Will be if Clinton gets to put a few more Sotomyers on the Supreme Court....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.