Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

After SSM vote Sen. Alesi went to “mass” and “received communion”

July 13th, 2011, Promulgated by benanderson

Hat tip to American Papist (CatholicVote) for this video.

Paraphrasing just one bit of the nonsense spewed by Senator Alesi: “I went to mass… received communion… and my priest embraced me”. In Thomas Peters’ initial report, he missed the fact that Sen. Alesi was most likely referring to a worship service at Spiritus Christi and receiving communion from schismatic priest Fr. Jim Callan. Sen. Alesi doesn’t state whether he was referring to this schismatic church or not, so the public scandal continues. We know there are priests in good standing in the DOR who openly applaud Sen. Alesi’s vote, so it’s not far fetched to believe Sen. Alesi was referring to one of our Roman Catholic parishes. If Sen. Alesi is in fact referring to Spiritus Christi, it’s important to keep in mind Bishop Clark’s initial support for the vision of that schismatic church. In Fr. Callan’s own words:

Bishop Clark, too, showed his support by sending notes of encouragement for our ministry. Diocesan officials told us how supportive he was when he had to answer Vatican inquiries about the video tapes or church bulletins that spies had sent to Rome. As one reporter said, Bishop Clark held up a “protective umbrella” over us for years. Our people were very aware of his support. His visits to Corpus Christi were marked by standing ovations and expression of gratitude, for we knew we sometimes put him in awkward positions with the Vatican.

Keep in mind this “Catholic” church at the time had women playing priests, were blessing same-sex unions, encouraged all to receive communion (including protestants), etc. Bishop Clark endorsed that church until Ratzinger stepped in.

Another humdinger from the Alesi video:
“It doesn’t matter what religion you are”

Tags: , ,

|

13 Responses to “After SSM vote Sen. Alesi went to “mass” and “received communion””

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    Ben, not to argue but isn’t this a little misleading? It was 13 years ago that Clark first reassigned Callen. That quote from Callen’s book is talking about things that happened from 13 to 20 years ago. Clark has never gone to Spiritus Christi which has been around since 1999.

    To infer that somehow Clark approves of a nonCatholic priest hugging a politician at a nonCatholic service is just not right.

  2. avatar MichaelL says:

    Ben. I was under the impression that the “priest” at Spiritus Sancti is a woman, Mary Ramerman. I base this on their website where she is listed as the pastor and “Father” Callan is listed as the associate pastor.
    http://www.spirituschristi.org/spirituschristi.org/Contact_Us.html

    I think this is important because clearly one of the main goals of those attacking the Church is to push for women “priests”. Once again the false flag of “equality” is raised to justify this cause.

  3. avatar Anonymous says:

    I think both Rammerman and Callen think of themselves as the priests there, but she is the pastor, the one calling the shots. Whatever the case, it doesn’t matter since they are not Catholic and are not under the control of the bishop or part of the diocese any more than the Holy Name of Mary church on Winton Road. Spiritus Christi is less than 1500 people and at least half of them came fr Protestant Churches before joining there.

    Ben quotes Callen’s book as if Callen is writing objective truth. In fact, we know little of the conversations that took place privately, what Callen was told to do or to stop. Judging from Callen’s past, he wouldn’t listen anyway. I think Callen in his book is trying to justify alot of his actions. I think if Clark told his side if the story, it would be different.

    In either case, Clark didn’t embrace Allesi. I think Ben is trying to make a point about Allesi. I just think trying to tie this to Maythew Clark is misleading and wrong.

  4. avatar Bill B. says:

    @A-13854 Good Post. Clarity should be the goal. In reading the posts here on occasion sometimes it feels there is more of an agenda to target Bishop Clark. He is the evil one or the instigator of all that is not holy. That leads me to believe that there isn’t the appropriat amount of thought before hitting the keys. We may not feel he is correct; however, has anyone gone for an appointment to discuss any of this? Oh well, it is a blog and that means its the individuals interpretation. I’d love to hear the Bishop discuss all of this with objective folks in the open. Why not ask him?

  5. avatar Anonymous says:

    As all leaders and, yes, bishops – Bishop Clark has made good and poor decisions. He must be responsible for all his decisions. We may not like nor agree with him and we will differ on whether some of his policies are good or not. That is all fine. In this Alessi case and story Ben relates- we cannot say Clark is responsible.

    If you respond that Clark allowed Callan to do what he did and that he is ultimately responsible for all that Callan did, than using that logic you have to say that Clark allows Antinarelli to do what he does and is thus responsible for all that he does. What is good for the goose…

  6. avatar Dr. K says:

    We may not feel he is correct; however, has anyone gone for an appointment to discuss any of this? Oh well, it is a blog and that means its the individuals interpretation. I’d love to hear the Bishop discuss all of this with objective folks in the open. Why not ask him?

    Bill B, every time I have spoken with the bishop throughout the years about his management of the diocese and renegade pastors he has been dismissive and condescending. Please do not assume that we have not tried. I probably know Bishop Clark (personally) far better than many of the readers of this site. He is what he is and he is not going to change. Any illusions that people might have that he is some kind of gentle but weak man being controlled by feminist nuns are false. He has full knowledge of what he’s doing and he doesn’t want to hear any criticisms about it.

  7. avatar Mary says:

    @ Anonymous-13854 -I agree that we need to read Callan’s book as an opinion piece, and not a factual document. But it did seem at the time that Bishop Clark held a “protective umbrella” over them. He attended mass there. He fielded all sorts of complaints. He knew what was going on and did not handle the situation. Eventually Rome stepped in and forced him to handle it. I know this because it was on the news and in the paper every day for weeks on end.

    Several years ago, my family and I were members of a large parish in Rochester. The priest (and pastor) began giving weekly homilies promoting acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and pushing for women priests and lay-run parishes. This went on for months. Eventually, my husband wrote him a letter explaining our concerns and even sat down with him. The priest listened thoughtfully and explained he was led by the Holy Spirit. So, my husband wrote to Bishop Clark. Bishop Clark wrote back and said that the priest was a holy man and that it was between our family and that priest. The end. I think that story would be a good example of a “protective umbrella.”

  8. avatar Anonymous says:

    Mary, all we can do is speculate about what went on through hearsay from nonobjective sources. And while Bishop Clark said Mass while visiting Corpus Christi Church, I don’t think he attended Mass there regularly. And Bishop Clark said Mass at many other parishes in the diocese as well so I’m not sure that his saying Mass at Corpus Christi means any thing more or less than him being at other parishes.

    As for your story of your family and the priests, what did you want the bishop to do? Publically humiliate the priests? I’m not saying what they did was right, or that Bishop Clark’s response was good enough. But it seems that people sometimes want to blame the bishop for everything and they want revenge.

    A good friend of mine went to Mass at Holy Spirit years ago. When she walked in, she was chewing gum. Father Antinarelli severely told her that you don’t chew gum at Mass. Embarrassed in front of her family, she got rid of it. At communion, she went to him and took communion in her hand. She didn’t put the host in her mouth while facing him. He stopped giving out communion and followed her back to the pew demanding she show him that she ate the host. She was so embarrassed that she left in tears. Her father wanted to meet with him and he refused. He wrote the bishop and got pretty much the same letter you did. I guess that protective umbrella is over alot of priests.

  9. avatar Mary says:

    Anonymous-138244 It is the Bishop’s job to look into complaints and handle them. The things I mentioned that the priest was encouraging in his homily were way out of line. And it was a big deal because it was being said on a weekly basis for months on end. It is unacceptable for Bishop Clark to continually ignore problems that members of his parish bring to him. Look around. There is a lot of crazy stuff going on around here. It is the Bishop’s job to keep everyone in line. That doesn’t mean he promotes what his priests do (positive or negative), but he is ultimately responsible.

    I don’t see anything wrong with what Fr. Antinarelli did in the story above. It is disrespectful for a person to chew gum at mass. Father shouldn’t have to tell her that-her parents should. Did he say it quietly and charitably-perhaps not (I wasn’t there). As for following her back to her seat, he is responsible for the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. The Eucharist is to be consumed immediately because it is our Lord. I would hope any priest would do the same thing. There are unfortunately many people out there who come to Mass and take the Blessed Sacrament home to be funny or to do disrespectful things to it. Just go on ebay-you’ll see it up for sale.

  10. avatar Ink says:

    Anon-138244: The Bishop is expected to keep his diocese on track, as Mary said. This is not a binary debate: either do nothing or publicly humiliate the priest. Bishops could write personal letters to priests warning them of their actions and threatening a public action if this does not change.

    I can also agree with Mary about people who take the Blessed Sacrament to play with it–I had an unfortunate experience where someone showed me that they had half of a Host. It was shocking, so it took me a moment to react appropriately. To be honest, I’m rather proud of Fr. A for doing so, to ensure proper respect of the Eucharist.

  11. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Ben, not to argue but isn’t this a little misleading?

    I re-read what I wrote and I don’t find anything unfactual or misleading. You’re going to have to be more specific in regards to what I wrote that was misleading.

    Clark has never gone to Spiritus Christi which has been around since 1999.

    ok – I didn’t say he did.

    To infer that somehow Clark approves of a nonCatholic priest hugging a politician at a nonCatholic service is just not right.

    um – YOU might have inferred that. I didn’t. However, I am inferring that the bishopric of Matthew Clark created an environment where SSM could pass. It exists to this day with active priests openly supporting pro-SSM organizations (see the links in my post)

    Ben quotes Callen’s book as if Callen is writing objective truth

    no I didn’t. I clearly stated it was Fr. Callan’s words. When did I say it was objective truth? What I can tell you is that what was going on inside that church was not concealed. Everyone knew what was going on and Bishop Clark did not stop it. It took Vatican intervention. Wouldn’t that signal support?

    If Fr. Callan is embellishing and Bishop Clark did not provide a protective umbrella for Corpus Christi, then why did it take intervention from Ratzinger? Why didn’t Bishop Clark put a stop to it himself? And why hasn’t Bishop Clark cleared this all up for us so that the public isn’t scandalized? Perhaps he will clear up this Alesi video and make it clear that Alesi is functioning outside the Catholic church.

    What did I report here besides fact? How exactly am I misleading?

    In regards to clarity – I completely agree. I don’t know if you’ve seen the national headlines where the story is being reported incorrectly. That is why I did this post – to correct those errors.

    The comparison to Fr. Antinarelli is not the same. Your stories *might* present a case where Fr. Antinarelli could have been more pastoral. But as stated by others these aren’t minor issues. Sometimes it’s hard to make people feel warm and fuzzy while giving them a necessary reprimand. As far as I know Fr. A isn’t doing anything wildly outside the realm of Catholic doctrine or worship. Are people videoing taping masses at OLV that are heretical in terms of worship and doctrine and mailing them to Bishop Clark? Not to my knowledge.

  12. avatar annonymouse says:

    138244 – it is (canonically) incumbent on the Eucharistic minister to ensure that the Sacred Body of Our Lord is consumed. A woman who walks into a church chewing gum, then at communion takes the host and walks away. And you fault Father for being concerned that perhaps she isn’t serious about what she’s doing there? I have no problem with the actions you decry. If only more priests were to take so seriously the Blessed Sacrament.

    Google a bit to see what fun people have with the Body of Our Lord – the sacrileges perpetrated routinely.

    What this has to do with the umbrella of protection that Corpus Christi (now Spiritus) was afforded and abused, I cannot tell.

  13. avatar Hopefull says:

    From tonight’s LifeSite News: (Happy Birthday Bishop Clark!) re: Jim A-Sleazy. Note particularly the last sentence indicating Alesi seems to admit he lied in his last campaign. Also, we don’t know if the “priest” who hugged him was Jim Callan, Mary Ramerman or some other schismatic.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/what-ny-sen-alesi-didnt-say-priest-who-embraced-him-is-excommunicated?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=40fadce7ec-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines07_15_2011&utm_medium=email

    What NY Sen. Alesi didn’t say: priest who ‘embraced’ him is excommunicated
    BY KATHLEEN GILBERT
    • Fri Jul 15, 2011 13:56 EST

    NEW YORK, July 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – When New York state Senator James Alesi announced to gay “marriage” supporters recently that his priest “embraced” him at mass after he cast his vote for gay “marriage,” he failed to mention one important point – his priest and his religious community have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
    “I went to Mass Sunday in my church and I was so warmly received,” Alesi told attendees at an event sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign earlier this month. “It doesn’t matter what religion you are, but I know in my religion, when I went up to receive Communion, my priest embraced me,” he said.

    However, the New York Times reports that Alesi belongs to Spiritus Christi Church, which broke with Rome in the 1990s “in order to support gay men and lesbians,” as well as female clergy.

    The two clerics at Spiritus Christi are Rev. James Callahan, who was validly ordained in the Catholic Church before his excommunication, and pastor Mary Ramerman. Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester excommunicated Callahan in 1998 and removed him from his post as administrator from the city’s Corpus Christi Church, according to the group. The entire community was declared excommunicated the following year.

    Alesi’s office confirmed to LifeSiteNews.com that the senator was hugged by his priest, but did not answer when asked who the priest was. Spiritus Christi Church also did not respond as of press time.

    Alesi, one of the most prominent senate Republicans in New York, voted for gay “marriage” after previously opposing it. Alesi has claimed that he only cast his vote against gay “marriage” in 2009 as a political move, to help Republicans reclaim the chamber in 2010.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-