Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Nabi Sayeth: Is This One More PR Campaign from Clueless Bishops?

[Editor's Comment: This looks like an orchestrated event with the identical letter released on the same date in dioceses in different parts of the country. Readers, has this letter appeared in your local parish bulletins? How many dioceses participated? Who wrote the letter? Did the bishops hire a PR firm to polish their image? At your expense? If this letter appeared in your bulletin, please tell us in a comment. And ask your bishop exactly WHAT is going on?] 

Nabi Asketh: If the father of a family with several children should commit an act of sexual abuse against one of those children, SHOULD THE FATHER BE PERMITTED TO DEAL WITH EVERY DIMENSION OF HIS SIN AND CRIME? COULD HE BE TRUSTED TO HEAL THE HORRIBLE DAMAGE HE HAS DONE TO THE ENTIRE FAMILY?

The bishops in various dioceses are conducting ANOTHER clueless PUBLIC RELATIONS CAMPAIGN….. 


Some PIERCING questions must be shouted back to the bishops in response to their latest PUBLIC RELATIONS EFFORT:

Do they think the laity are hopelessly stupid? Do they think that the laity could ever give assent to a strategy proposed by the very ones responsible for the scandal and cover-up to begin with? 

What about the sins/crimes that have yet to be revealed, and which revelations must be provided by Law Enforcement since the bishops have no credibility with regard to what they have half-heartedly revealed thus far? 

What do they mean by reparations? The dictionary definition is: “The making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged.” To whom will they redress their reparations? Is money their primary concern? 

Where is ANY acknowledgment of MORTAL SIN? 

Do they not realize how their bulletin PR statements are highly insulting to the intelligence and faith of Catholics?
Are they not aware that the long-held mantra of the laity “Pray, Pay and Obey” is no longer in vogue?

Perhaps the bishops need to pray at their meeting for the virtues of honesty and humility, and then SUBMIT THEIR LETTERS OF RESIGNATION TO THE POPE, BUT ALSO, TO THE PEOPLE, beg for forgiveness, and spend the remainder of their days in penance and prayer….Anything less would fall grievously short of being an indication of sincere contriteness of heart…..


Biagio said...

Cardinal Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!... Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

I thought praying for reparations was sort of comical. Maybe in WV it was for Bransfield to return his ill-gotten gain. But one priest actually had his parish pray for him. WOW!

Chriss Rainey said...

What is conspicuously missing in the religious-toned babble of this letter is any mention of on going sodomy by priests and bishops with willing partners in sin. There is no mention of the need to purge homosexuality from the hierarchy. There is no recognition that the root cause of the evil they have been caught doing is still in place and going strong.

Seems they are only sorry for those wrongs they have been caught doing.

Expect business as usual if you ask me. There will be no voluntary loss of power forth coming. They will have to be drug out of office in handcuffs.

Susan Matthiesen said...

Um...I have a question! What does "intensified prayer and fasting" look like for a bishop who has lied, hidden the truth, covered up for sodomites, shifted sodomites to other parishes and dioceses and who are homosexuals themselves?????

Maybe that's why they are asking the laity to join in if we "feel called to do so." They know their prayer and fasting will be a bit weak compared to what the laity will do.

Well, sorry your highnesses. I will not be participating. Not going to do your praying and fasting for you. You have to do that yourselves. The plan of prayer and fasting was YOUR decision to make you look oh so holy, as if you are really serious about solving the filthy sodomite dens within your dioceses and probably in your own chanceries.

I can respect the office of bishop but not the men holding that office. You are all pathetic. Yes, even the orthodox bishops - if there really are any among you. If so, speak up! Get angry! Get some zeal! Toss off your golden threaded robes and wear sackcloth and smear yourselves with ashes and eat locusts. THEN pray and fast.

Bishops, you heathens, the problem is this: How to carve the sin of sodomy out of your own souls first so that you will cast out the sodomites in the priesthood. CAST THEM OUT!

We need a new pope. One who will CLEAN HOUSE like Jesus in the Temple.

Susan Matthiesen said...

If I find that notice in my bulletin I will tear it up and send it back to the bishop with a note. And I will sign my name.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I received this email from a reader in Indianapolis. So who orchestrated it. If it was a PR firm how much did it cost the faithful?

I enjoy your blog.
I really don’t post comments on blogs anymore.
Just thought you would like to know that exact letter appeared on the cover of the latest Diocese of Indianapolis weekly newspaper.
It was also in our Sunday bulletin from Nov. 4.
No need to reply to me. Thought this info would be helpful to you.

Cope419 said...

This was also in our bulletins (Diocese of Ogdensburg in NY). I was so hoping our bishop was actually taking a stand and doing SOMETHING. I guess I didn't read it closely enough! So disappointing to find that it is just cut and pasted!

Jack Print said...

According to Les Femmes, the definition of reparations includes the phrase "by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged." Yet, the email concentrates only on money. It also implies that every single Bishop was responsible for the terrible crimes committed by some of their members.

I firmly believe that those who committed these despicable acts need to be punished for their crimes - both civilly and in the hereafter. However, I do not, can not, and will not tar every member of the priesthood or every bishop with the sins of the few. As Christians and Catholics, we must be careful not to slander the innocent in our quest to identify the guilty.

Each of us must come to our own decisions. As for me, I will remember to "Judge not, that ye be not judged.” I will condemn the sin, but leave it to the Lord to determine what is in the heart and soul of each individual Bishop.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

The reality and the sad fact is that MOST of the bishops became complicit in the abuse scandal by their silence. In 2002 in Dallas not a single bishop would second Bishop Bruskewitz's motion to examine the relationship between the sex abuse issue and dissent from Church teaching. And that dissent continues particularly on LGBTQI issues. If, as some claim, a significant number of bishops are homosexual their refusal to address that issue makes perfect sense. This led Bishop Bruskewitz to describe his brothers as "this pathetic bench of bishops." And they have done little to solve the problem in the years since Dallas.

Silence in the face of moral evil is a sign of complicity and agreement and there has plenty of silence. Just consider the failure to preach Humanae Vitae. Silence is a major problem and even the "good" bishops sadly have been mostly silent.

Our mind is called the "seat of judgment." We certainly cannot judge the souls of anyone. That is, indeed, for God. But we can question the bishops' silence in the face of evil and call for the transparency that is so often spoken of and ignored in action. Let's all pray for our bishops, but hold their feet to the fire. We desperately need the purifying fire of the Holy Spirit in our poor Church.

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Another email -- this one from Phoenix. I was disappointed since I respect Bishop Olmsted. Inquiring minds still want to know. Where did this letter come from and are the bishops using a PR firm to polish their image?

Re your Nov. 6 item about bishops' PR campaign: Bishop Olmsted has a letter in my parish's Nov. 4 bulletin almost word-for-word what the two bishops' letters that you used say. Major change is that Bishop Olmsted includes his auxiliary, Eduardo Nevares, with himself.
God bless,

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Very similar letter from Bishop Soto of Sacramento. At least he changed it a little.

Islam_Is_Islam said...

Ditto from Diocese of Cheyenne except for an addendum specific to our crisis that resembles McCarrick's "restrictions" vs "sanctions" folderol, that is, specifically orally delivered consequences vs documented ones.

Our bishop is new to the episcopacy having been elevated in 2016. At our "listening" sessions he forthrightly mentioned the role that Cdls Cupich and O'Malley played in convincing him to use his jurisdiction to re-open both civil and church investigations into fifteen-year-old allegations against the Bishop Emeritus. I am skeptical that the motivation for their counsel was to throw the faithful a bone while throwing this old man "under the bus." However, there is an important "test case" note: Wyoming has no statute of limitations on abuse allegations.

The bishop's addendum to the national PR letter:
"In addition, I have the responsibility to inform you that recently I received a letter from the Vatican which stated that Pope Francis (sic) has imposed the same restrictions on Bishop Joseph Hart which I put in place earlier--that he is prohibited from participating in any public celebrations of the Liturgy and that he is not to have any contact with minors. Please remember him in your prayers."

My question for our bishop is knowing now (via Vigano's testimonies) the difference between "restrictions" and "sanctions", why is the Vatican's consequence for these substantiated and credible allegations merely restrictions and not sanctions? Why is this man who preyed on young males not defrocked and commanded to live out the remainder of his life in penance and prayer? Since our bishop has jurisdiction, can he "up" the restrictions to sanctions or is that movement only allowed to the pope?

I plan to ask him these questions. I must admit that so far he has gotten back to me although he finds that my comments "reveal a heart that is not willing to listen."

Thank you, Mary Ann, for pointing out the USCCB's "boiler plate" letter.