Bishop Tod Brown & St. Mary's by the Sea

[Beeline]

Joe Kelley:

They may not be taking part in the protest, but I suspect that most are more sympathetic to protesters than to the administrator. Most of the parishioners are in that parish because they liked the old ways, and it was the only parish that continued them.

Actually this is an assumption that can neither be proven true or false.

However, I suggest you attend Sunday masses there
before you gander a guess as to the amount of suport for the protesters in the parish…

The flyers are quite polarizing, irresponsible and scurrilous and having been in attendance and read a considerable number of flyers and talking to other parishioneers. Many who remain low key and opposed to the protest, and others who simply will not take a flyer and refer to those people as nuts. I can tell you that your opinion is based solely on your removed presence and trying to apply some logic at deriving an opinion.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Beeline:

I also feel that whether or not the majority of the parishioners of Mary Star of the Sea support their Brothers and Sisters, or even whether what they’ve done is irresponsible, is not at issue. In fact, I wouldn’t be suprised if there weren’t a lot of very angry people at Mary Star of the Sea by this point.

What’s at issue is that these people had the liturgy that they loved taken away from them for what appears to be no good reason, then were deprived of the Alter Rail and other signs and symbols they found to be comforting by a Bishop who then demanded that they not do things they were specifically allowed to do by the Vatican and by the GIRM. Then, to cap things off, the Bishop in question caused bulletins to be printed which invited to parishioners to leave and invited other parishioners in your parish to invite them to leave…

Beeline:

Actually this is an assumption that can neither be proven true or false.

However, I suggest you attend Sunday masses there
before you gander a guess as to the amount of suport for the protesters in the parish…

The flyers are quite polarizing, irresponsible and scurrilous and having been in attendance and read a considerable number of flyers and talking to other parishioneers. Many who remain low key and opposed to the protest, and others who simply will not take a flyer and refer to those people as nuts. I can tell you that your opinion is based solely on your removed presence and trying to apply some logic at deriving an opinion.

…I’m sorry, but I find the actions by the authorities in question to be far more polarizing than anything these people have actually done. I’m dealing with a situation where a Rector has inadvertently set parishioners against each other, and that’s painful enough. But, I just can imagine why a Bishop of souls would invite people to leave and then would instruct other parishioners in a parish to extend the same invitation.

I was gone for some 20+ years because of petty resentments and what not. and it took just about everything in God’s tool box to bring me back, including a miracle and a “softening of the heart” heartbreak that I still can barely describe. I can’t see why a Bishop would rish that, or worse, for 50 souls entrusted to his care.

No responsible assessment would let your brothers and sisters who’ve expressed their anger and their pain in the inappropriate fashion you’ve described “off-the-hook” or would describe it s even remotely responsible. I want that to be clear. I also want it to be clear that nothing can be gained by calling people who are hurting as much as these people are , “Nuts”, or by blaming them for a situation which someone else set up in the hopes of producing this reaction.

I believe that you and the rest of your fellow parishioners would do far better for everyone concerned if you would demand that Bishop Brown act as a Shepherd of Souls and that he find some modus vivende whereby the people who’ve lost so much could get back their Latin Mass and be allowed to receive the Eucharist at the alter rail.

One call to the Fraternity of St. Peter can produce a priest qualified to say the Traditional Latin Mass, but Bishop Brown has to approve the call. He won’t do that unless he sees that a unified call from Mary Star of the Sea for the Traditional Latin and for the same mercy towards the Traditionalists he extends towards…

In Christ, Michael

 

[Beeline]

Traditional Ang:

Beeline:

I also feel that whether or not the majority of the parishioners of Mary Star of the Sea support their Brothers and Sisters,
… Mary Star of the Sea by this point.
<snippage.
He won’t do that unless he sees that a unified call from Mary Star of the Sea for the Traditional Latin and for the same mercy towards the Traditionalists he extends towards…

In Christ, Michael

What state and parish are you from?
There is no ‘Mary Star of the Sea’ in California
and certainly not in Huntington Beach.
Although there is a Mary Star of the Sea in
London and New York.

This is about ‘St. Mary’s By the Sea’ in Huntington Beach.
You cant claim to be a parishineer there
and to have experienced any of this firsthand
and to have been exposed to many of the protest flyers and church bulletins…back and forth.
Nor heard the homilys that address the issues by
Fr. Tran.

You can’t claim you mistyped the name of your parish or one that you frequent, 3 times, in all references…its unbelievable.
You have no credibility.

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Mary Star of the Sea is a parish in San Pedro, California. The Norbertine Fathers of Orange County are there.

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Beeline:

Actually this is an assumption that can neither be proven true or false.

However, I suggest you attend Sunday masses there
before you gander a guess as to the amount of suport for the protesters in the parish…

The flyers are quite polarizing, irresponsible and scurrilous and having been in attendance and read a considerable number of flyers and talking to other parishioneers. Many who remain low key and opposed to the protest, and others who simply will not take a flyer and refer to those people as nuts. I can tell you that your opinion is based solely on your removed presence and trying to apply some logic at deriving an opinion.

Beeline:

As someone who does know a good deal about St. Mary’s by the Sea, I would posit that while your feelings about the fliers do represent the feelings of some Mass attendees at St. Mary’s by the Sea parish, they do not represent the feelings of the people who have been most involved in the parish for a number of years.

As far as the fliers, I think it is unfair of you to dismiss them as “quite polarizing, irresponsible and scurrilous”. I have read all of them, and haven’t had anything like your reaction.

Perhaps you are not approaching the controversy from a pastoral perspective (suggesting that people are crazy is definitely not pastoral).

While I understand that you might not appreciate the tone of sections of the newsletter, you might try to understand the feelings of these people (with whom you clearly disagree) and the actions of Bishop Brown which have elicited the tone you so ardently oppose.

It would also seem that you have completely dismissed the mountain of evidence Restore The Sacred has presented in the fliers to demonstrate their claims about the actions of Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran.

That is alarming.

I would like to better understand your perspective. Perhaps we might discuss the actual contents of the fliers.

I think that would be more productive than simply dismissing people as crazy while claiming to have inside information and understanding which trumps anything others here might have to say.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

Beeline:

What state and parish are you from?
There is no ‘Mary Star of the Sea’ in California
and certainly not in Huntington Beach.
Although there is a Mary Star of the Sea in
London and New York.

You can’t claim you mistyped the name of your parish or one that you frequent, 3 times, in all references…its unbelievable.
You have no credibility.

Beeline, please be nice!

This mistake is made very often around here for a number of reasons.

1. The obvious “Mary … Sea”
2. The Norbertines are both there and here (St. Mary’s). They teach at the school at San Pedro and they preach at St Mary’s every Sunday. Those white cassocks are attention getting!
3. They are only about 30 minutes from one another, and both “by the sea”
4. Many people, who are particlularly attached to the Norbertines “speak” the names of the 2 parishes incorrectly all the time.

And, to be aware of the situation, he may be in contact with people who DO go to St. Mary’s by the Sea. and may very well have seen the bulletins and the flyers.

Please don’t make assumptions - please don’t judge the actions of another without irrefutable evidence.

I also know that most, and very possibly all, of what is in the flyers is true. And much of what comes from Fr. Tran and the Bishop is incorrect or just plain lies and/or contrary to the teachings of the church. They have a job to do. Educate their flock in and follow the teachings of the church. It appears that neither of them are doing either of them.

God bless,
Angel

 

[Walt_Oliver]

**Notice: **Before this gets out of hand, I want to remind participants on both sides of this argument that CAF prohibits name calling and uncharitable remarks. This applies to other posters and to public figures such as priests, bishops, and yes, even politicians.

There are some posts here which need to be edited, which I will probably do early tomorrow morning. I trust there will be no need for future editing of posts after you read this. Thank you for your cooperation.

Walt

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Beeline:

I’m sorry if I got the information wrong - I probably got it off of one of the Blogs I was reading and ignored the ones that got the name right (GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out). I never claimed to be a parishioner or a visitor of your parish. I think I was there once for someone’s wedding some 3-1/2 years ago, but I didn’t show up until the end - I wasn’t going to any Church at that time. There are a lot of people here and elsewhere who will attest to what it took to get me back to our Lord.

Whether or not you feel I have any credibility on this issue doesn’t change the fact that these people that some in St. Mary’s by the Sea have been calling “Nuts” are your Brothers and Sisters in Christ; and, that as difficult as it is to do when people are being difficult or to hear it from an outsider, Christian Charity demands that you try to find some sort of way to live and worship together as Brothers and Sisters in Christ and that you not just throw them out and to the wolves…

Beeline:

What state and parish are you from?
There is no ‘Mary Star of the Sea’ in California
and certainly not in Huntington Beach.
Although there is a Mary Star of the Sea in
London and New York.

This is about ‘St. Mary’s By the Sea’ in Huntington Beach.
You cant claim to be a parishineer there
and to have experienced any of this firsthand
and to have been exposed to many of the protest flyers and church bulletins…back and forth.
Nor heard the homilys that address the issues by
Fr. Tran.

You can’t claim you mistyped the name of your parish or one that you frequent, 3 times, in all references…its unbelievable.
You have no credibility.

…One reason I’m so adament is that I’m dealing with a situation where several people felt “Invited to leave” by members of my parish after a rather stormy parish meeting last Oct. I’ve spent most of the last few months following them around and trying to make sure they find spiritual homes ANYWHERE, and don’t end up doing what I did some 25 years ago. As I said, there are a lot of people around here and eleswhere who know what it took to get me back.

I haven’t heard Fr. Tran’s homilys, but has Fr. Tran volunteered to start having communion at the alter rail and to put back the crucifix if the “Malcontents” will stop handing out the stupid fliers? Has Fr. Tran volunteered to call the Fraternity of St. Peter in order to get a Priest qualified to do the Tridentine Latin Mass and to push the issue with Bishop Brown for them if they’ll start acting as fellow members of the same congregation?

I’ll bet you he hasn’t.

My concern is that you have 50 Brothers and Sisters in your parish who are hurting so much they are dividing your parish. What can you and your fellow parishioners do, short of asking them to leave, that will restore that unity and love? And, What can those of us who post for Catholic Answers do to help that resolution and to help them to be accommodated?

You’re not dealing with criminals - You’re dealing with Brothers and Sisters in Christ who are hurting so much they are behaving inappropriately. I know this is hard, as it’s been hard for some of those who did the “Inviting to Leave” in my parish, but please try to put yourself in their shoes.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Beeline]

Thanks for your reply Trad.Ang

My chosen name here is Beeline because in writings
I am very forward and direct.
As you’ll notice, amongst the posters here I dont engage in name calling, nor do I accuse others of being unChristian like in their conduct. Its not the issue at hand. However, being direct I call
situations as I see them and make no apologies for that. In person I am different, but try not to apply
personality in these emails, just my opinion based on fact as much as I can.

Once again thank you for taking what I said, as I said it.

My purpose in this thread is to give my persona view
as someone who has seen the flyers and talked to other parishioneers and has taken strict notice of what I see going on in Church. A sort of different reading from what the protesters have managed to get into publicity. Unfortunately I have discontinued attending St Mary’s by the Sea some
4-6 weeks ago because I find it polarizing and unacceptable that this small group of longtime parishioners are disobeying the Bishop in licit matters with not a simple protest but a rather nasty
and ugly one(re: HagiaSophia post). I’d rather go to Saint Simon and Jude, a very liberal church with no kneelers, no traditonal Shrines/Statues and a liberal pastor and other local churches than be be a part of whats going on over there. I will not be back, in any consistent way, till this matter is resolved.

…and there you have it!

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Angels Watchin:

Beeline, please be nice!

This mistake is made very often around here for a number of reasons.

1. The obvious “Mary … Sea”
2. The Norbertines are both there and here (St. Mary’s). They teach at the school at San Pedro and they preach at St Mary’s every Sunday. Those white cassocks are attention getting!
3. They are only about 30 minutes from one another, and both “by the sea”
4. Many people, who are particlularly attached to the Norbertines “speak” the names of the 2 parishes incorrectly all the time.

And, to be aware of the situation, he may be in contact with people who DO go to St. Mary’s by the Sea. and may very well have seen the bulletins and the flyers.

Please don’t make assumptions - please don’t judge the actions of another without irrefutable evidence.

I also know that most, and very possibly all, of what is in the flyers is true. And much of what comes from Fr. Tran and the Bishop is incorrect or just plain lies and/or contrary to the teachings of the church. They have a job to do. Educate their flock in and follow the teachings of the church. It appears that neither of them are doing either of them.

God bless,
Angel

Angel:

Thank you.

In my case, it was simple GIGO as I explained. I was more worried about trying to assess the situation and got the name wrong because I took the blog with a wrong name, when there were 5 or 6 that had it right.

I think the problem is that Beeline feels that I’m meddling, which I probably am.

I wouldn’t think about doing it except for the fact that I’m pretty sure that is these people are pushed out of St. Mary by the Sea, they’ll either go SSPX (if we’re lucky) or they’ll leave the Church entirely and maybe never return.

I was gone for almost 25 years. that’s a long time, and a LOT can happen then, including having people die outside of a State of Grace, which I very nearly did a couple of times.

It’s only through the Grace of God that I’m here, and that I wasn’t either killed or died on the operating table.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t see why a Bishop of Souls would take the chance of losing even one soul if he could avoid it, let alone 50 souls.

That’s why I’m meddling. If I’m wrong, I’ll find out when I make my next confession, or when the Lord decides to overrule the confessor when I die.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Beeline:

Thanks for your reply Trad.Ang

My chosen name here is Beeline because in writings
I am very forward and direct.
As you’ll notice, amongst the posters here I dont engage in name calling. However, being direct I call
situations as I see them and make no apologies for that. In person I am different, but try not to apply
personality in these emails, just my opinion based on fact as much as I can.

Once again thank you for taking what I said, as I said it.

My purpose in this thread is to give my persona view
as someone who has seen the flyers and talked to other parishioneers and has taken strict notice of what I see going on in Church. A sort of different reading from what the protesters have managed to get into publicity. Unfortunately I have discontinued attending St Mary’s by the Sea some
4-6 weeks ago because I find it polarizing and unacceptable that this small group of longtime parishioners are disobeying the Bishop in licit matters with not a simple protest but a rather nasty
and ugly one(re: HagiaSophia post). I’d rather go to Saint Simon and Jude, a very liberal church with no kneelers, no traditonal Shrines/Statues and a liberal pastor and other local churches than be be a part of whats going on over there. I will not be back, in any consistent way, till this matter is resolved.

…and there you have it!

Dear Beeline:

I’m sorry to hear that you feel you’ve been driven out of St. Mary’s by the Sea. I hope that you feel at home at your new parish.

Obedience to a Bishop is not required when he doesn’t have the authority to demand it - If you’ll follow my posts and some others, you’ll see that the Vatican gave explicit permission for the Faithful to kneel both to receive Communion and for the Agnus Dei and for the time after both. NO Bishop can compel the Faithful otherwise. In those cases, the orders of Bishop Brown simply weren’t Licit.

Hagia Sophia is right far more often than not. this is one of the rare instances where he isn’t. The letter from Cardinal Arinze is and must be the controlling authority, otherwise the Vatican has no Authority.

Refusing to join in the “Kiss of Peace” is a compleely different matter, as it’s part of the worship of the assembled community and all are obligated to join in together. The same goes for handing out unapproved handbills after Mass - These are simply inimical to unity and have to be forbidden.

St. Augustine had a Maxim - “In things necessary, unity, in things doubtful, liberty, in all things, charity” I think that was forgotten at St. Mary’s - Problem is, it was also forgotten by Bishop Brown.

I had an acquiantance who was a traditional conservative Anglican priest who became Roman Catholic and went to the Catholic Seminary at Berkeley. After being assigned to a parish in a very liberal diocese, he told another friend of mine, “We don’t discuss Sin or Hell or Purgatory anymore”.

I hope that’s not the case at St. Simon and Jude.

Peace be with you, Michael

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Genesis of Restore The Sacred

The genesis of Restore The Sacred was not because we wanted to bring the Tridentine Mass back. All of the group members are fine with the Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

Before we were a group, 14 parishioners secured a meeting with Father Tran, the current administrator, to discuss the many abuses and unjustifiable changes to the Novus Ordo at our parish. In the presence of these 14 parishioners, Father Tran stated that he believes women should be ordained as priests during the course of the conversation.

A few days after this meeting, one of the participants at said meeting received a letter from Father Tran with instructions to pass the information of this letter to the other participants, “This is final!” Father Tran added that there would be no more meetings and all the announced changes were going to take place, “if any of you feel that you are not happy with this, you are free to go back to your home parishes; and please fell free also to leave the Parish Council.” This is when our group was born.

Through the weekly parish bulletins, we were being informed about all the intended changes.

Here are the changes with which we have difficulties:

The Sign of Peace
For more than 26 years at our parish, parishioners did not conduct the sign of peace at any of the Masses. Father Daniel Johnson always understood that the sign of peace was optional (in accord with GIRM #82):

“as for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.”

**The custom of the people at Saint Mary’s by the Sea, for more than 26 years, had been not to conduct the “sign of peace”.**While Father Johnson was the pastor, none of the Bishops (i.e., the late Bishop Johnson, Bishop McFarland, nor Bishop Brown) ever reprimanded him for this custom during their respective tenures, and all were aware of it.

Now, since the sign of peace has been introduced, St. Mary’s has been infected by the same distracting waving, hugging, kissing, and even pew hopping that is common in other parishes.

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
For more than 26 years at our parish, Father Johnson rarely resorted to the use of extraordinary ministers for the administration of Holy Communion. Now the practice of distributing Communion under both species (the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood) has been introduced, essentially requiring the use of extraordinary ministers, and up to the present, not even 10% of parishioners approach the Precious Blood during the distribution of Holy Communion.

Kneeling After the Agnus Dei
It is not that we “like” to kneel; we are aware that we have the right to kneel. We have done this during the Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI for more than 26 years with Father Johnson as pastor. Furthermore, this was the custom in our diocese (and all U.S. dioceses) until 3 years ago. However, at Saint Mary’s, we’d continued keeling after the Agnus Dei without any admonition from the bishop until after Fr. Johnson’s retirement.

Kneeling after the Agnus Dei is a right guaranteed by the Holy See and, as such, it supersedes any local norm. Cardinal Arinze expressed that here:

Kneeling In The Mass

Kneeling to Receive Holy Communion
Another of the intended changes was announced in the parish bulletin of July 17, 2005. Father Tran wrote that since “we are resurrection people we should now receive Holy Communion standing, and not kneeling.” Therefore, kneeling to receive Holy Communion was going to be restricted and the parishioners who insisted on kneeling were going to be catechized, but because of our efforts, Father Tran postponed this intended change.

The Holy See has guaranteed the right of Catholics everywhere to kneel for Holy Communion, as can be seen here:

Kneeling For Holy Communion
Must Catholics Stand?

Pastoral Service Appeal (PSA)
As for the statements in the fliers about the Pastoral Service Appeal (PSA), we have evidence to support them.

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Membership
Our original group of 14 parishioners has grown to more than 65 parishioners and many more who share and support our positions, but who, for different reasons, do not place their names on the Restore The Sacred fliers: The group has distributed, at all Masses, 18 weekly issues to date.

Before more than 65 parishioners received the sad letter inviting us to leave our parish and our diocese, Father Tran said in the parish bulleting that it was a “mortal sin” to kneel after the Agnus Dei and he dismissed four fine altar boys for kneeling after the Agnus Dei.

The members of Restore The Sacred have never been guilty of slander or detraction. They have not repeated anything untrue or unknown.

Their suffering comes on every side, as Church authorities spurn them and progressive and orthodox Catholics tell them to obey. It is interesting that the same progressives who cite Church teaching that one must follow the directives of their conscience as an excuse to accept heterodoxy and even sinful behavior such as homosexual acts, contraception, and abortion are not rushing to the defense of Restore The Sacred.

The members of Restore The Sacred have obeyed, and obeyed, and obeyed, and they see that all things inconsistent with progressive Catholicism are just being stripped away, bit by bit, while real liturgical abuse and heterodoxy within the diocese continues, apparently without comment.

Most of the Tridentine Mass attendees at St. Mary’s have gone over to a local chapel not affiliated with the diocese. Many of them have never looked back.

The members of Restore The Sacred are the folks who remained, out of obedience, despite their personal discomfort.

We feel that Bishop Brown is straining the gnat (liturgically) and swallowing the camel (liturgically, in other parishes in the diocese, and even morally in his support for homosexuality and silence on pro-choice Catholic politicians in our diocese).

Members of Restore The Sacred have been falsely accused of wrongdoing and disobedience. They have even been publicly accused by the parish administer of “serious” “mortal sin” for kneeling! They have also been accused of pride when all they are doing is worshipping as they always have and trying to help people to see that there is an agenda behind the bishop’s actions that doesn’t bode well for Catholics who have a traditional understanding of Church teaching and discipline.

As a consequence for their stand, people have accused them of being “more Roman than Rome” or questioned their motives for continuing to worship as they always have. Now what they have always considered reverence and done for that reason is being called an act of pride, or defiance, or an act of protest! It’s really quite sad, as their motives have actually never changed.

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Since Flier #15 was posted on the Internet, people who read it for the first time and who are not aware of the background of Saint Mary’s, have been constructing their own conclusions about Restore The Sacred.

The flier Fr. Tran criticized, Restore The Sacred, issue #15, dated February 19, 2006 essentially reprinted the following article from the March 2002 issue of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review:

Lex orandi, lex credendi, by Rev. Anthony J. Manuppella

The attorney’s letter sent to Fr. Tran had this to say about Fr. Tran’s allegations:

Your contention that Restore The Sacred of “Save Saint Mary’s group”, issue #15, dated February 19, 2006 contained “false allegations against the American Bishops” is somewhat vague and in need of specifics.

As you know, the primary substance of the issue #15 was a reprinting of Lex orandi, lex credendi, by Fr. Anthony J. Manuppella from the March 2002 issue of the Homiletic & Pastoral Review. The Homiletic & Pastoral Review is published by Ignatius Press. Ignatius Press is also the exclusive publisher for all of Pope Benedict XVI’s writings in the United States. I’m sure you would not contend that the same publisher Pope Benedict XVI has chosen to print his written works in the United States and with which he has had a relationship that has spanned decades would print an article that contained “false allegations against the American Bishops”?

 

[me_myself_and_I]

It is important to note that it is absolutely scriptural and in keeping with Church law to do the things Restore The Sacred has done.

In the Church, the voice of one is the voice of none. Only the voice of many is taken seriously by Church authority and capable of receiving a response from the Holy See, especially in matters such as this. This is in keeping with the following scripture:

If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17)

Also bear in mind:

St. Paul publicly rebuked St. Peter.

St. Catherine of Siena was publicly critical of cardinals and told Pope Gregory XI to go back to Rome.

Moreover, According to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, (ST II-II.33.4 ad 2) we have the duty to rebuke our prelate if he commits a fault.

Most importantly, Catholics at St. Mary’s by the Sea are within their canonical rights to question the actions of Bishop Brown and Fr. Tran in accordance with Canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon 212

§1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

 

[me_myself_and_I]

It is for the reasons above that Restore The Sacred has pointed out the following in their fliers (included here so as to objectively present the material):

Fact: Homosexuality is an issue of deep personal importance to Bishop Brown, and he has made significant efforts, at the risk of confusing the faithful, to support homosexual relationships. Upon his arrival in the Diocese, Bishop Brown had an interview with the Orange County Register that appeared in their July 1, 1998 edition. The article was titled, “Middle of the road’ bishop to lead O.C. Catholics RELIGION: Tod Brown is praised by his Idaho diocese, but his moderate views `riled’ some.” The article states, “…he has not been afraid to ruffle feathers, speaking out in favor of gay civil rights…” and later added that, “In one instance, some were upset when he refused to support an anti-gay initiative in Idaho. The bishop said it would have “contributed to attitudes of intolerance and hostility directed at homosexual citizens.”

Fact: In February of 2000, Bishop brown faxed each priest in the diocese two articles by Fr. Gerald D. Coleman dealing with the Prop. 22 ban on homosexual marriage. Included was a brief note from Bishop Brown, sent with the faxed articles, saying that Fr. Coleman’s article “expresses very well my own thoughts on this subject.” In his article, Fr. Coleman argued, “Some homosexual persons have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnerships.” The ensuing controversy this memo caused was chronicled in the Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission. (“Damnable Falsehood”, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, January 2001: losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2001/0201cc.htm) ("Studied Ambiguity”, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, May 2001: losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2001/0501cz.htm) Lynch Responds To Coleman: losangelesmission.com/ed/news/0601news.htm

Fact: Bishop Brown has yet to publicly recant his support of homosexual domestic partnerships, despite the fact that support for legal recognition of such relationships is contrary to Church teaching.

Fact: Bishop Brown and chancery bureaucrats downplayed the actions of Fr. Cesar Salazar and continued to support him, while knowing he had been looking at pornographic pictures of young boys and young men on his computer. (“No Vow Of Silence Here”, OC Weekly, Dec. 26, 2003 - Jan. 1, 2004, ocweekly.com/ink/04/16/news-arellano.php ) Under the administration of Bishop Brown, Father Salazar remained assigned to a parish with a school despite the fact that he was already known to be feeding an unhealthy sexual appetite with homosexually oriented child pornography.

Fact: Bishop Brown concealed and tacitly supported the homosexual relationship between former director of liturgy and evangelization, Fr. Rod Stephens, and Howard Sellars, Fr. Stephens’ business associate and longtime companion. Although Fr. Stephens has since taken a leave of absence from the priesthood, you have retained his consultation services through the diocese and paid him handsomely, reportedly to the tune of around $300.00 an hour at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Parish, St. Anthony Mary Claret Parish, and the Mission San Juan Capistrano. (All That Perceptions Stuff, Robert Kumpel, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, July/August 2004, losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2004/0407rk.htm)

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Fact: Bishop Brown appointed Fr. Gerald Horan, O.S.M. as the Superintendent of Catholic Schools.

Fr. Horan’s progressive views on moral theology have made headlines since media attention focused on the presence of twin five-year-old boys in the kindergarten class at St. John the Baptist school in Costa Mesa who have been adopted by a homosexual (male) couple living in a domestic partnership. (The couple has since reportedly placed the children at Sts. Simon & Jude Parish school, and they are reportedly not required to pay tuition.)

During their time at St. John the Baptist school, when questioned about the matter by the press, Fr Horan made the following statements to the Los Angeles Times that were quoted in literally hundreds of news articles that picked up the story:

“But Father Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of schools run by the Diocese of Orange, rejected the idea of a parental covenant. If the school barred gay parents from enrolling their children, they would also have to ban children of parents who violate other church teachings, including those who are divorced, use birth control or weren’t married in the church, he said.

“This is the quagmire that [the parents’] position represents,” Horan said. “It’s a slippery slope to go down.” (Los Angeles Times, Sunday, January 2, 2005)

These statements were widely reprinted in the secular media and jubilantly reported by homosexual activist websites with resultant confusion as to Church teaching on all of the matters mentioned by Fr. Horan (and no longer just those of homosexual activity and domestic partnerships).

Fr. Horan was also quoted as saying:

“It’s not really our role to make moral judgments on the life choices of our parents,” said Father Gerald Horan, the diocese’s superintendent of schools. “We’re there for students, not to endorse or condemn parents.”

“Furthermore, Horan said, the kindergarten- through eighth-grade campus is a private school, and if parents don’t approve of who is allowed to attend, they have the option to enroll their children elsewhere.” (Orange County Register, Tuesday, January 4, 2005)

Fact: In a letter to Fr. Martin Benzoni, O. Praem., then pastor of St. John the Baptist parish, Bishop Brown hailed the admission of the aforementioned openly homosexual couple, living in a domestic partnership, and introduced to the parish as “father and father” of their adopted children at St. John the Baptist parish. In the letter, he encouraged the community’s acceptance of these men’s lifestyle, proclaiming it part of a “diversity policy”.

Fact: On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, Servite High School (an all boys Catholic high school in the Diocese of Orange, but not a diocesan school) had an all school Mass to celebrate the feast of the Seven Holy Founders of the Servite Order. Rev. Tod Brown, Bishop of the Diocese of Orange attended the Mass.

Loretta Sanchez, a staunchly pro-abortion member of the House of Representatives (Democrat, 46th District) was also in attendance as an invited guest. Ms. Sanchez received Holy Communion at the Mass in front of the student body. The presence of Ms. Sanchez was announced to the congregants and students, and she was applauded. All of this was done with Bishop Brown right there. Sanchez represents a portion of Santa Ana, a portion of Fullerton, a portion of Anaheim, and a portion of Garden Grove (all cities within the diocese of Orange) in the United States Congress. Servite High School is in Anaheim (one of the areas Ms. Sanchez represents). She is a vocal advocate for “abortion rights” (including partial-birth abortion) and she has attempted to use the Catholic faith to further her career (as she is a baptized Catholic).

Fact: Bishop Brown has never publicly called Ms. Sanchez to fidelity (although his predecessor, Bishop Norman MacFarland told her not to speak in churches).

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Fact: Bishop Brown’s vocations director has publicly supported Loretta Sanchez in the past. His support for Sanchez was known before he was selected by Bishop Brown to be vocations director. For details, see: “She’s Okay, Vote for Her”, by Maggie Garcia, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, July/August 1998: losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0798mg.htm

Canon 915: Those … who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

Canon 375: By divine institution, bishops are constituted pastors in the Church, to be teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship, and the ministers of governance.

§2 By their episcopal consecration, Bishops receive, together with the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of ruling, which however, by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.

Since Vatican II calls abortion an “abominable crime,” it is difficult to see how any bishop fulfills his “office of sanctifying” (canon 375, sec. 2, above) by arguing for or even allowing public defenders and enablers of a “right” to commit abortion to receive Christ’s Body and Blood, with its implications of communion with His Church. How can there be such living membership in that Church?

 

[me_myself_and_I]

The following information, taken from the end section of “The Roots Of The Catholics’ Scandal”, by Steven Greenhut, The Orange County Register, June 9, 2002, has also been made known:

The examples the local Catholics pointed to do not directly impact the sex-abuse crisis, but they confirm the post-Vatican II attitude of envelope-pushing on issues of sexuality and hostility toward those with orthodox views, as described by author Rose and others:

• The July 2000 Wanderer reported allegations about a local priest responsible for sanctuary design throughout the diocese: “For Bishop Brown, the fact that almost every informed Catholic in the Diocese of Orange knows - and has known for years - that [Fr. Rod] Stephens is living what appears to be a scandalous and open homosexual lifestyle, does not appear to be a matter of any import.” The article, by Paul Likoudis, referred to a $10,000-plus per-person luxury cruise Fr. Stephens took with his “longtime companion,” and reprinted a joint Christmas-Chanukah card Fr. Stephens and his alleged companion sent out, with the phrase, “From our digs to yours.”

Fr. Michael McKiernan, the assistant to Bishop Brown who handles personnel matters, told me this month that Fr. Stephens lives in a rectory and that Fr. Stephens assured the diocese he is celibate. Fr. McKiernan refused to comment on whether Fr. Stephens was spoken to over the allegations. (Fr. Stephens is leaving his official diocese post in July, Fr. McKiernan said, for reasons unrelated to the allegations from the Wanderer article.)

When I asked Fr. McKiernan about the facts of the Wanderer article, he replied: What facts? That he took a trip?

Relatives of Fr. Stephens told me they have met with the bishop and Fr. McKiernan to discuss their concerns about Fr. Stephens’ alleged improprieties, and said they faced an astounding lack of interest.

• In February 2000, Bishop Brown forwarded to priests two articles by Fr. Gerald D. Coleman dealing with the Prop. 22 ban on homosexual marriage. The article, the bishop wrote, “expresses very well my own thoughts on this subject.” Fr. Coleman, a Bay Area priest who writes regularly for the Diocese of Orange newspaper, supported Prop. 22, but argued, “Some homosexual persons have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnerships.”

After a laity newspaper reported on the debate (one person quoted called Fr. Coleman “a well-known dissenter from Church teaching on homosexuality"), Fr. Coleman clarified his remarks in the diocese newspaper: “When I speak of ‘committed lifelong homosexual relationships,’ I am speaking of chaste unions.”

Minor point. He just forgot to mention it.

• A 1999 memo to the bishop from Ruth Bradley, director of the diocese’s office for religious education, and Carmela Treanor, director of the office of family life, criticized an article promoting teen chastity that appeared in a former diocesan publication, the Bulletin. Although they agreed with the goals of the article, they said the chastity program it described has a “pietistic approach and there might be an audience for it among home schoolers and fundamentalists.” They complained about references to sex education in schools being an “abysmal failure,” and took issue with the argument that schools should not teach explicit sex education to children under age 12.

• A 1998 letter from the diocese’s current vocations director, Fr. Wilbur Davis, to Director of Communications Msgr. Lawrence Baird, also deals with topics in the Bulletin. Fr. Davis depicted Catholic Family Radio as extremist. He called Mother Angelica, the TV nun who offers kind-hearted but traditional Catholic opinions, an apostle of “religious intolerance and arrogance.” He criticized one of the nation’s well-respected traditional Catholic colleges as “the home of Catholics United for the Faith, a pathetic organization of bitter people.”

 

[me_myself_and_I]

Examples of questionable catechesis in the Diocese of Orange:

Theology In Wonderland, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, December 2000

Note that there was an editorial correction for the story above.

(The article mistakenly said that Father Chris Heath was the director of the Orange diocese’s Institute for Pastoral Ministry instead of Fr. Chris Smith. Other than that, the article was completely true. I know, because I know the source for the story.)

Here’s another example of questionable catechesis:

It’s Just A Pumpkin , Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, January 2001