Posted on 05/15/2003 2:02:36 PM PDT by Polycarp
[bold emphasis in original document]
Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown
Johnstown, Pennsylvania
Dear Sisters and Brothers in the Lord:
Whereas the rights and dignity of priests in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown are threatened by forces both external to the community of believers and internally by our bishop and his staff.
Whereas, in response to this threat, the Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown was secretly formed by 26 clrgy of this Diocese to demand the rights and dignity of all priests be respected and protected by our bishop.
Therefore, we, the Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown, joined with our fellow clergy, ask the following from our bishop:
Whereas our bishop insists on publicly defending lawsuits against this diocese and thus increasing the threat that more names of our priests be exposed in the media, we demand that our bishop cease and desist his public defense of any and all lawsuits concerning alleged priestly misconduct and instead settle these cases out of court so as to protect the reputation and well being of those priests so named and others that may be revealed in the course of any trial.
Whereas our bishop threatens and harasses homosexual priests into fearing for their office, we demand that our bishop cease and desist any and all harassment of homosexual clergy and instead work to protect the reputation and well being of clergy of all sexual orientations.
Whereas our bishop placates those who attack our diocese and its priests, we demand that our bishop turn the attention of his legal representation towards stopping the hateful and homophobic actions of George Foster, Brian Barcaro, Dr. Brian Kopp [FReeper "Polycarp"], et. al., who are set upon destroying the reputations of homosexuals priests and this diocese.
Whereas our bishop ignores the actions of certain priests who consistently act against the unity of this diocese, we demand our bishop suspend Fr. James Foster and Fr. John Nesbella immediately, for repeated and constant acts which threaten the unity of our community of faith.
Whereas our bishop removed Dr. David Brown [of "GoodBye, Good Men" book fame] from his position as intake psychologist and from candidacy for the permanent diaconate program due to the incessant demands of several Talibanic conservative clergy and laity, we demand our bishop reinstate Dr. Brown both to his position as intake psychologist and to the permanent dioconate program.
Whereas our bishop has ordained several men to the priesthood over the last several year who are unfit to serve the modern, post-concilular (sic) church, we demand our bishop conduct a complete review and overhaul of the priestly recruitment program:
I. Review the psychological reports of the men ordained since 1995 and order to counseling all those who are deemed to have serious mental deficiencies or proven inability to serve in the church of Vatican II.
II. Cease and desist sending seminarians to the present rigid seminaries used by our diocese and begin to use more pastoral seminaries for formation.
III. Deny orders to the present candidate for ordination to the priesthood because of a very negative psychological report and his inability to serve the present day church.
IV. Examine all present and future seminarians in greater psychological depth to determine their fitness and desire to serve the modern church.
We believe that it is better to have fewer clergy and more lay involvement than to have many rigid and juridical priests who drive women and men away from the community of believers.
Whereas the present staff our (sic) diocesan finance office (Larry Sutton, et. al.) shows no respect for our clergy and little if any knowledge of the day to day life of our clergy and our parishes, we demand that our bishop retrain or replace the staff of the finance office so as to respect the dignity of our clergy and their office.
Whereas our chancery shows little care or concern for our retired priests at Dimitri Manor or elsewhere, we demand that our bishop review and overhaul the priests retirement program so as to provide them with the comfortable retirement due to them after many years of thankless service:
I. Immediately increase the present monthly retirement benefit payment to $1,500.00.
II. Fully fund all future retirement needs 20 years into the future in a pension trust fund so as to guarantee monthly payments regardless of the future financial state of the diocese.
III. Separate all retirement monies from diocesan funds so as to protect them from being taken in lawsuits.
IV. Immediately form a committee to examine the deplorable living conditions at the Dimitri Manor priests retirement home.
Whereas the compensation of our priests under the present formula is inherently unjust as priests whose workload is heavy due to parish size are paid the same as priests in small parishes, we demand that our bishop install a new payscale to reflect a more appropriate and just salary based on workload and parish size.
We believe this list of demands is the same list Jesus himself would ask for if he were a priest of this diocese.
If our requests are not met, we ask our fellow clergy to prayerfully consider ways of peaceful protest. Ech should follow his or her conscience in discerning ways to show civil disobedience to our hierarchy until our voice of change is heard.
Sincerely in Christ,
Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown
N.B.: The PFAJ is a group of priests of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown united in a pursuit of justice and sworn to complete secrecy to avert the very real threat of retaliation by our diocesan bishop.
CC:
Brother Priests & Deacons
Concerned Laity
National Catholic Reporter
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Johnstown Tribune-Democrat
Altoona Mirror
Centre Daily Times
WTAJ TV
WJAC TV
WWCP TV
WRTA Radio
WNTJ Radio
WRSC Radio
I think this is why it needs wide distribution and analysis. If its a hoax, it needs to be soundly debunked, regardless of the agenda of the one who wrote it. I know many individuals on the left who might pull this kind of stunt. If any of the conservatives did it, they will regret it.
Either way, what a damn mess most of the dioceses are in.
When I really think about this, I realize that I should be spending most of my day in prayer. Thank God for the cloistered nuns and the monks who do most of our work for us.
It is with no small amount of schãdenfreud that we welcome our erstwhile brothers from Rome to the battle against this pervasive and thoroughly shameful problem. Let's face it, there have been perverted priests, bishops, cardinals, and even (mamma mia) popes, but at least they had the Christian courtesy to discuss their failings and unnatural lusts with their confessors. They did not form a bloody queer union.
If one is light in the loafer, the place for one is in the window dressing department of Lord and Taylor, not in the priesthood. The only guy in both churches who has it right is Tough-Talkin' Tony Bevilacqua, Roman Archbishop of Philadelphia. Since he is hopelessly politically incorrect, he is "but a voice crying in te wilderness."
BTW, you guys got a great guy out there "Bishop Harry," who has been handed the assignment of rooting out these foul bastards. He's getting no official support, and I suspect they gave him the job to bury him. In the meantime, not even the ugly acolytes and choristers are safe!
Our diocesan chancery offices, where the education office is located, is right next door to the Dmitri Manor where the homosexual molesters have been retired, in the same compound. The laity would not have known about the conditions at Dmitri Manor, but the liberal nuns who run the manor would. The same gaggle of feminist nuns run the chancery offices and education office.
Our diocesan "spokesperson" is a flaming liberal feminist nun who's office is in the same complex, and who has publicly refuted our orthodox letters to the editor and columns regarding homosexuality at every turn. No laity knew about the contrived negative psych eval either till this broke.
I'm almost convinced its the retired and active homo priests in union with these nuns/liberal feminists. I could be wrong about the involvement of the feminists.
I need to stop thinking about it and go build a Rainwater Regatta sailboat with my son.
Please note in this post that I neither accuse you of being lavender nor of advocating the weird compulsion that makes it necessary to separate Lance and Bruce with a crowbar, if at all. I merely accuse you of suggesting an exaggerated kindness, politeness and civility towards Lance and Bruce that they have not earned (and certainly is not merited by the curious affectional disposition toward the exit structure of the digestive system of one or the other or both) and of paving the way to social issue surrender which is NOT an option.
And, of course, unless you are a Roman Catholic, how we Catholics deal with the lavender fifth column in our own clergy and among our bishops is our business and none of yours; so don't weasel around with sweet nothings to substitute for necessary harsh action against Father Fudgie. We pay for his misbehavior and you don't.
If you are Catholic, let's take a poll in the pews as to how much we value Fr. Fudgie or how we want him punished. Let's see how the actual donating Catholics REALLY feel.
Like most normal people, I could care less what non-clerical lavenders are up to so long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses and so long as it does not affect me or mine. What lavenders do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own premises is likely to remain private as was ever the case before many of them acquired verbal diarrhea and began to insist on befouling newspapers, television, radio, conservative websites and other facilities available to decent and normal people with their insistent propaganda.
Apropos of another of your posts, I live on the Northern Plains in Northwest Illinois and I read newspapers, internet posts, take in an occasional movie and watch some television and, of course, listen to talk radio (and have hosted some in Southern New England where I lived until a few years ago). If you don't think there is an incessant lavender campaign to be accepted as normal, then you must not read or watch much or get out very much.
Do lavenders have equal rights? You bet. Equal and not one milligram more. Despite their moaning and groaning, no one in government has the backbone to discriminate against their, ummm, affectional preference. Actually, quite the contrary since some governments subsidize with benefits homosexual fornication without subsidizing heterosexual fornication. Not that I am complaining about the latter, you understand. I also am not aware of any governments which have had the "courage" to recognize deep meaningful relationships between persons and their German Shepards (denying veterinary care and pensions to Bowser) or bigamists or trigamists or quadramists.
My wife and I are not interested in riding on a flatbed trailer and simulating normal sex in a normal sex parade past the Stonewall Bar in New York and would have no problem if other normal couples were prohibited from such public effrontery. We think the same standards should apply to Lance and Bruce when they feel the urge to do the analogous gay roleplaying as they pass St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York's annual sodomy rights extravaganza. Such behavior is not speech and is not protected for normal folks much less for perverts.
Neither normal (heterosexual) people nor queers have any business having ANYTHING sexual to do with children. Equal right to be punished for such misbehavior seems perfectly reasonable.
If Ellen Degenerate, Anne Heche (who seems to have taken the marriage cure), Michael Jackson, Peter Townshend, Roman Polanski, the Arkansas Antichrist, Mrs. Antichrist, Ted Kennedy or anyone else involved in what passes for entertainment at this low point in American history resulting from the period January 21, 1993 through January 21, 2001, wants to wallow in the slime, I don't need, ummmm, the details and I would appreciate it if those people who prioritize what news to purvey might give a bit more attention to actual achievements like medical research into genetic therapies, the execution of malefactors, the firing of those who teach "fisting" in Massachusetts public schools, the academic successes of first generation Americans whose parents fled tyrannies such as Hanoi or Havana, etc.
We are ALL well aware that there are homosexuals who manage to refrain from pederasty and even some who prefer to so refrain. We are also aware of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and its infamous slogan of "Sex Before Eight or It's Too Late." Whatever might that mean (other than their perceived need for early recruitment by statutory rape, lavender division)?
Such awareness does not mean that the punishment ought not to fit the crime. Homosexual rape is a more complicated business than the heterosexual kind. Neither is EVER permissible or to be winked at but the homosexual rape of an eight-year-old boy is really a rather special crime and requires appropriate creativity in its punishment. Fortunately, incarceration in the general population at a maximum security prison will usually do the trick.
If those "gays" who do accept such behavior regard themselves as persecuted, I earnestly hope that they ain't seen nothin' yet compared to the persecution that they will see.
If you claim that no one who is "gay" accepts such violence and perversion against children as normal, accepted and integral to the homosexual community or just rampant promiscuity or sexual practices which have spread among mankind a pernicious and usually fatal disease which ought to have caused quarantine long before SARS did, you are remarkably naive.
You may well disagree with any or all of the above. You know what? Ask me if I care. Don't bother to attempt to convince me that being nice and fluffy and possessing extraordinary and indeed heroic politeness has much to do with the ideology or effective practice of conservatism.
It is liberals who obsess over the manners of aggressive conservatives, hoping that conservatives will play the role assigned to them by their liberal and left enemies: the yellow stripe in the middle of the road run down by each passing tractor-trailer. Sorry, Jorge, it's time for conservatives to recover rudeness and call faggots what they are "faggots" if they insist on social acceptance or attention. That goes double for San Francisco's Dykes on Bikes aka the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (faggots dressed in nuns' habits advertising their perversions while attacking their very favorite enemy, Roman Catholicism).
Heterosexuals are the norm. The lavenders are the exception. If we have any sense, and we do, we will keep it that way. It is a flat out lie to treat these cases of arrested social development like Lance and Bruce as though their perversions were publicly acceptable.
If any genuine conservative is too squeamish to wage political war on behalf of morality and social normalism, no one is drafting him or her. He or she would just get in the way anyhow.
I don't know if Jorge is aware of the ACLU's advocacy either.
Most normal guys would smack them in the jaw upon an indecent advance. A lavender pocketbook is no match for a left jab or a right uppercut.
Excellent post. It's the first time I have ever broken out in spontaneous laughter at my computer screen.
homosexual rape of an eight-year-old boy is really a rather special crime and requires appropriate creativity in its punishment.
I think Christ may have mentioned millstones around the neck in such instances.
Thanks, Black Elk
As to the obvious reference, not only do some know nothing as to social policy conducive to the well-being of Western Civilization but they are apparently linguistically challenged as well as philosophically challenged. It appears to be partially attributable to HOPIOS but not at all entirely.
Milites Christi copias sinistras antichristi superaverunt. Copias sinistras delendae sunt.
Who cares what the homosexual community thinks is normal. They, themselves, are abnormal deviants.
Next we will need to know whether the cannibal-American community regards as normal the eating of children as well as adults. There was a Montana fellow a couple of years ago who subjected a number of pre-pubescent boys to the fate worse than death before subjecting them to death and then grinding them up to serve to the neighbors in meat sauce over pasta. Naturally, when he had lived in Taxachusetts a few years previously, he was a local officer of the Demonratic Party that gave us Ted Kennedy and Ketchupboy, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank.
The real question is whether cannibalizing the abused boys was within the normal bounds of "normal" cannibalism or whether the cannibal-American community (or the Demonratic Party for that matter) has deliberated on the issue as yet and come to a "moral" determination as a guideline for scrupulous cannibals. AND, of course, there is also the question of the proper etiquette in serving the remains as meat sauce over pasta to (one hopes) unsuspecting neighbors. If anyone had told most of the guests the truth, the path between the table and the vomitorium would have given whole new scope to the definition of Galloping Gourmet! (I hope).
Certainly there are those who would call for suppression for such alternative behavior. You know the ones. They want to station a cop in everyone's kitchen when the most informed and Euroweenie opinions among us know, along with the PBS types, that whatever goes on between a man and his cook pots and the neighborhood kiddies is as private as the previous goings on in his bedroom or wherever. "When WILL we ehhhhh-ah-vuh learn?"
They have to put the crack sophisticates at Playboy in the Philosophy Department and the Lambda Defense Fund and the "Log Cabin" Society (shouldn't that be the Millstone Society?) to work on the "moral etiquette" questions. America wants to know!
At the rate we are going, America NEEDS to know!
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.