Gay priests of Diocese A-J in revolt; demand Bishop conceal molesters, sue Catholic activists

Written press release mailed to diocesan bishop, priests, media outlets of Diocese of Altoona-Johnst | 5/15/03 | Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown

[ninenot]

Well---this attitude is not entirely the property of the poor poofters of Altoona-Johnstown.

Another thread (Maida Steps Up To The Plate) contains a letter from Cardinal Maida peremptorily cancelling the use of a Catholic facility for a speech by the known Rebel, (ex-)Fr. Padovano.

It ALSO contains Padovano's response. You will read the same prissy and snot-nosed style in his letter as you read (with even less elegant composition) in the "theses" of these queers.

[ninenot]

It occurred to me that your post was really "full-auto."

However, as you age, (experience speaking here) it's often useful to move the switch to the 'semi-auto' mode.

Save some ammo/energy for the WHOLE argument, not just the easy pickins...

[B Knotts]

I think you've nailed it.

Excellent translation!

(from a Catholic)

[drstevej]

***IMHO you are now second only to the esteemed barrister BlackElk in analysis and rebuttal.***

With due respect to Black Elk, this paraphrase by OP is quasi-canonical. OP pulls the mask off these reprobates and shows their foul hypocrisy.

OP will be Cardinal of Diplomacy in a Pope Piel papacy.

[George W. Bush]

Poly to OPie: I hope you don't mind, but I just emailed your superb analysis all over the conservative Catholic world!

It's kind of like dangling red meat in front of a Rottweiler, isn't it?

[Polycarp]

LOL! Yessir!

[TEXOKIE]

You are welcome, Polycarp. Prayers offered for safety of your family as well. God bless all who are seeking to expose Evil whereever it may be found.

A petitioning-God-for-mercy BUMP

[american colleen]

CWNews "soundoff" spot had a disclaimer about this letter posted on May 16 as follows:

Altoona-Johnstown: Maybe. Maybe not.

Dom, I'm extremely skeptical about the authenticity of the letter you mention, and have to wonder whether it is what it purports to be (a manifesto of a clandestine group of homosexual priests), or whether it's the work of other folks who wish to jump-start the Adios to Adamec Campaign by stirring up outrage among the unaligned.

To my ear, the wording doesn't reflect the language of real priests: "Cease and desist sending seminarians to the present rigid seminaries used by our diocese and begin to use more pastoral seminaries for formation." It's off-key; perhaps this is the way a layman might imagine a priest talks.

In October of last year, the Lexington (KY) Herald Standard reported threatening letters sent to priests by a group calling itself the Gay Priests Association. No one had heard of the group, apparently, and for a secret cabal it too is named a little too clumsily for comfort. Again, there's a cracked-bat feel to the thing.

I have no doubts that there is no shortage of clergy in Altoona-Johnstown endowed in the way the letter suggests. But if past indications are any guide, they have had considerably more effective means of getting through to their bishop, alas, than an anonymous letter cc'd to the local media. Let's go slow on this one.

[Polycarp]

Thanks. It appears that letter in "Sound off" was a response to this entry in the same column:

Lavender revolt in Altoona-Johnstown

A group of anonymous, homosexual priests in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Penn., sent an open letter to their bishop demanding he immediately stop publicly defending the diocese against lawsuits and settle them all out of court. Are they afraid that such defense would be a further harm to victims? Do they think it is only just for the bishop to accept responsibility for his and his predeccesor's actions? Not exactly. They want the bishop to settle all the cases because they want "to protect the reputation and well being of those priests so named and others that may be revealed in the course of any trial." In other words, guilt or innocence be damned, no matter whether anybody has actually been abused, their reputations, their homosexual lifestyle, and their cronies must be protected first. These are priests dedicated to serving God and His people? We can't let any more names of alleged abusers get out!

They also demand that the bishop turn the diocese's lawyers on those who would dare speak out against homosexuality and especially against gay clergy. And they want the bishop to form more priests in their own image.

Whereas our bishop has ordained several men to the priesthood over the last several year [sic] who are unfit to serve the modern, post-conciliar church, we demand our bishop conduct a complete review and overhaul of the priestly recruitment program. [emphasis added]
What kind of overhaul? "Cease and desist sending seminarians to the present rigid seminaries used by our diocese and begin to use more pastoral seminaries for formation." [emphasis added] For one thing, what's with the pseudo-legal language? Why add "desist" when you could just say "cease?" Because it makes it sound more important and pompous. And have you noticed how the whole thing reads like a very good parody of typical liberal, "spirit of Vatican II" tripe? These people and their clones throughout the Church are becoming shrill parodies of themselves. For a good laugh, read the whole thing.

[american colleen]

Yes, Dominico Bettinelli's webpage. I hope you respond to this and let them know what you know.

[huskyboy]

By the title as a federation I would think it does come under the secret society ban. For all we know this is a larger scale group than meets the eye.

While I may not agree with what they seem to be promoting, I still do not it is covered by the ban. Let me turn the tables around for a second. Down here in the diocese of Arlington there are some folks who were trying to investigate the bishop and see why he would think of defrocking a priest who went to a deposition because he was required to. More details are at the RCF Web site.

Sometimes, given the retaliatory nature of certain prelates when caught, people will naturally want their identities hidden so it doesn't affect their relationships, jobs, and family life so much when the prelate goes on the offensive.

Now, I'm not saying this to hate, but rather agreeing with the Church when it reaffirmed that there can be no gay priests (can you imagine the many occasions of sin in the seminaries and such)? Now, if the post-conciliar church wants to have gay priests, fine, that's their religion and they can do whatever. Consequently, if these folks want to protest the oppression just for being who they are, then it would be reasonable for them to do so. After all, no bishop should be going on a witch hunt for certain people because they're suspected of a being of a certain nationality, right?

I don't know what their motives are, but it seems like it's more of an affirmative action deal than a plot to overthrow the Church like the Masons would do. On an objective spiritual side they're still living in sin, but again, that's a different subject.

[american colleen]

Just found this posted today at Catholic Light. Sorry to post this stuff but Dom Bettinelli and one of the Catholic Light guys are local and I read them every day.

Agitprop in Altoona?

Catholics used to opening their web browsers and reading the Outrage Of The Day were greeted with this manifesto today, purporting to be the work of gay priests in the Altoona diocese. The document criticizes Bishop Adamec for kowtowing to the demands of "conservative" Catholics, ordaining men of "rigid" views as priests, and failing to defend the interests of priests accused of sexual abuse. Now, this is strange, because the "conservative Catholic" activists in that diocese, including the folks at the "Diocese Report" web site, have been making more or less the opposite complaints against the bishop for some time.

It looks like the folks at DR believe it's for real, and even Dom of CWN took it at face value for a while, but the text doesn't look legit to me. The writing's bad and it doesn't use the terminology you'd expect to find. It reads like some critic's not-too-sharp idea of "this is how the liberals really think".

So be on guard. My guess is that the statement is disinformation from some "conservative-Catholic" activist, somewhere between a joke and a smear. More at Dom's.

[Polycarp]

Thanks for the heads up. I just sent this to them. These are my thoughts and "findings" so far. (There may be bitter conservatives here, but I know none that would propagate a hoax such as this):



I'd like to provide a few background details on the "Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown" (PFAJ) letter. I must say up front that I'm not unbiased, because I'm one of the individuals named who the "priests" are urging Bishop Adamec to sue.

We do not know who wrote this letter, but we certainly suspect it was not a group of "26 clergy."

However, there was a private/secret, by-invitation-only meeting April 1, 2002 of 32 members of the diocesan clergy. In talking to a priest who was present, it appears that concepts were floated at that meeting that were vaguely similar to those expressed in the PFAJ letter. The priest with whom I spoke was not receptive to the idea of a "priests' union" nor to the idea of uniting against the bishop. However, he did agree that the priests needed to offer each other mutual support and fellowship, especially in spiritual formation, something sorely missing from this diocese. He was not subsequently contacted regarding this current letter, and no mention of an actual "Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown" was made.

We are assuming that priests who were sympathetic to the concepts floated at that meeting subsequently met and formed this group. We have no solid evidence, however.

There were a few errors in the letter that are intriguing if this came from an active priest. Dr. David Brown (mentioned in Michael Rose's book, "Goodbye, good men) was never suspended from the diocese as an independant contractor who performed intake psychological exams for seminarians.

Nor was he ever suspended from the diocesan permanent dioconate formation program. However, "Talibanic" is a term Dr. Brown coined and used in letters to ed of local papers in describing the Catholic activism of George Foster, Brian Barcaro (webmaster at www.diocesereport.com), myself, and Fr. James Foster (who the authors of the letter demand be suspended.)

Furthermore, very few priests and no laity were aware of the "very negative psychological report" against "the present candidate for ordination to the priesthood" (a transitional deacon who will receive Holy Orders next month.)

This "very negative psychological report" was written by a mental health professional who had never met the transitional deacon, at the request of a very liberal pastor under whom the deacon served in a parish of the diocese for several months. It should be noted that the deacon is very conservative/orthodox and the paster who requested this psychological report, based solely on his hearsay, is one of the most liberal priests in the diocese.

Finally, several priests who were known homosexual molesters were quietly removed either for "medical leave" or "early retirement" over the last 18 months. This was at least in part a direct result of Catholic activism, including newspaper reports of evidence we uncovered in our own investigation of this diocese as well as information posted at www.diocesereport.com and www.freerepublic.com.

These priests were serving in comfortable positions on regular priestly incomes in this diocese, and now are living on comparatively meager retirement funds. A large portion of those prematurely and quietly retired priests are now living at Dimitri Manor, which the letter specifically demands to be upgraded. Please note the emphasis in the letter on retirement pay and conditions at Dimitri Manor. Also note their perceived "persecution" by Bishop Adamec.

So it appears this letter originates with:

1) some retired priests (forced into retirement by the exposure by lay activists of their history of homosexual molestation) are working in conjunction with

2) some active priests (the liberal paster who obtained the "very negative psychological report" based on hearsay from a friend in the medical health field, other priests for whom we have proof of homosexual behavior and/or participation in internet homosexual chat rooms) and

3) feminist individuals/nuns in the diocesan education office who have been under scrutiny for inviting heterodox speakers such as New age nun Sister Jose Hobday and Humanae Vitae dissident/CTA speaker Kathy Coffee.

Kathy Coffe's appearance was cancelled due to the outcry by local Catholics, and the Hobday talk was publicly protested.

Incidentally, the other priest who this letter demands be suspended, Fr. John Nesbella, lead the laity in fighting the diocesan education office's invitation of these two dissident speakers. It should also be noted that both Fr. James Foster and Fr. John Nesbella as well as the transitional deacon are ardent defenders of the Culture of Life, and both preach the truth about homosexuality from the pulpit and engage the subject in frequent letters to the editor and guest columns in our local newspapers.

Of course, everything I state here is purely conjecture on my own part, and I speak only for myself. I do not speak for any of the other individuals named in the letter.

If you would like further information, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Brian J. Kopp, DPM

bjkdig@floodcity.net

[jochebed]

From the internal evidence --- the rotten spelling and grammar that you note among that evidence --- I've come to the conclusion that the letter is a fake, created and distributed by one or another of our poor Church's faction fighters to calumniate some priests or just to start a fight and enjoy watching it play out. My diocese (Milwaukee) has great flocks of faction fighters of all stripes, even more than Altoona has, and those faction fighters can be and have been underhanded and downright vicious. Lord, deliver us from the Wandering Actionites, _please_!

[Polycarp]

We've been heatedly debating this locally since it was mailed out Thursday. My conclusions are posted in 233.

I could very well be wrong. But if its a hoax, it did not originate in the "conservative" camp, IMO.

[jochebed]

According to the Catechism of our Catholic Church, every human being has the right to the protection of their reputation; this includes both the living and the dead, and even includes ordained people and even sinners. See Catechism #2477-2479.

[BlackElk]

The Whalens and Duggans among my ancestors (who came from the City and County of Cork) appreciate the geesture as do I.

[BlackElk]

The Whalens and Duggans among my ancestors (who came from the City and County of Cork) appreciate the gesture as do I.

There, I can too spell gesture.

[american colleen]

Thanks for the clarifications.

I too have my doubts about the veracity of the letter. I find it very difficult to believe that a letter so full of errors and making no bones about where they stand regarding honosexuality would make its way to a newspaper and therefore be widely circulated. It almost sounds like a parody because it includes almost every bogeyman us orthodox loathe.

This "battle" we are engaged in can be so dangerous spiritually - it is easy to get off track and lose your soul and make oneself believe that the means justify the ends. I don't mean you here at all, but I have seen it happen and I read it all the time on the threads.

[Polycarp]

polycarp, queer priests are bad enough, but queer priests who can't spell?

Our bishop is notoriously poor in spelling and grammar. When he gets on a rant and sends out a letter not written or edited by his handlers, the errors are hilarious.

This letter makes him look like a disciplinarian orthodox bishop. So we've been joking amongst ourselves that he probably wrote it himself...