[Dominick]

Rather is is the late homosexual apostate Bishops of Brooklyn, Francis Mugavero

An accusation validates the spurious Bayside apparitions?

Thus he was a licit holder of the office of Ordinary of the See of Brooklyn.......but an invalid one

Licit, therefore the one in charge of the investigation. His peccability has nothing to do with the Condemnation of Bayside, which is been confirmed by many others.

Moreover, Mugavero never did his duty under Canon Law: namely, to throughly investigate the seer, witnesses, purported messages, any alledged miracles. The seer herself should have been interviewed, and determine3d to be sane

Many times some of this is needed, and many times it is not required, the person to make that call is the Bishop.

whether Paul VI was replaced by a double

I am neutral on that topic.

Again, I remain neutral on hte subject of Bayside.

It doesn't sound like it.

My point in referenceing the article from this site was the content of the article, and the quotes from Spellman and others on the subject of the non celibate lay diaconate.

Even if Bayside were a real apparition, the Church is not at all ruled by them. The Church teaches that apparitions are binging only on the seer. Spellman also isn't in charge, he may have had concerns but the men at the reins made the call. I think it has worked well, in getting men who are trained, and educated, to take leadership roles to assist Priests in a Parish where those positions would go unfilled.

[thor76]

I referenced the article to open a discussion about the non-celibate lay diaconate. Naturally enough, persons like yourself had to go and push the "hot button topic" of Bayside. Ok....since you pushed the button (way too many times):

"Bishop" Mugavero is bound by Canon Law to thoroughly examine and investigate all alledged cases or apparitions, visions, locutions, miracles, within his diocese. This is to examine the situation and determine its legitimacy (if any), and to see if the matter is contrary to Church teaching.

Mugavero simply threw out a letter condemning the Bayside matter without ANY investigation, meetting with the seer (or having officials of the diocese interview her). This is clear and simple deriliction of duty. He DOES NOT have the option to be cavalier in abandoning his duty. He must follow accepted proceedure - this is his duty to his diocese, and to Rome.

His validity has everything to do with his actions, words, and pronouncments as a church office holder. His successors in office have also simply refused to properly investigate the matter.

I should be noted that both Bishop Daily and the present occupant, DeMArzio are/were also in material heresy/schism as they did and do knowingly tolerate it in their clergy and chancery offices. Neither of them has done anything to reform their clergy, the performance of the sacraments, or the teaching of Church doctrine.

Our Lady has been indicating that the present tribulations of the church were to come via the sins of the clergy. She has stated this at LaSallette, Fatima, Akita......and if one wishes to believe so, at Bayside too. She has been correct.

As to the usefullness of deacons, they do pitifully little which a lay person cannot do - or be trained to do. From personal observation in a number of of dioceses, the deacons are very poorly educated, and either do not know the faith - or teach doctrine which is not Catholic. All too many have studied in programs which teach that which one should properly call error.

"Leadership roles"????? There is no better leadership role for a young man to consider then to teach and lead the People of God as a priest.......by both his words, and personal example.