We got a very quick response from Bishop Clark in regards to our spiritual bouquet.
Tags: Bishop Clark
|
| Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church |
| Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church |
We got a very quick response from Bishop Clark in regards to our spiritual bouquet.
Tags: Bishop Clark
|
This is great to see. Thank you, Bishop Clark!
That was a very nice response. I would have preferred “Your Vicar of Christ” but he still is our brother, too, so it works. How pleasant.
Bishop Clark is a gracious man. He acknowledges our prayers, thanks us and wishes us well.
For years I suspected that a change in friends might do him good. Wouldn’t it be something if he invited our brother Ben and some Cleansingfiredor staff over for lunch!
Maybe someday, our beloved bishop will get togehter with the likes of Archbishop Chaput.
Now that would be a luncheon I would love to attend.
God bless Bishop Clark, in time and in eternity.
Wow! That’s wonderful!
Bishop Clark has always been magnaminous when he has been the recipient of kind deeds like this.
Bishop Clark’s response sounds good and looks good, but don’t let him fool you. Once you have crossed Bishop Clark, you have crossed him for life.
There is a single man in our diocese who could be ordained a priest this afternoon. Bishop Clark is holding a 25 year grudge against him and will not ordain this very holy man.
This is only one example of Bishop Clark’s vengeance. He has used it many times against many of his own priests, nuns and parishioners.
And he also held it against the Catholic Physicians Guild.
He does write and say very fine thank-yous (though sometimes when lengthy ones clog up a Mass its a bit much). We Moms always say, good manners will get you far.
Now, as to what Dan Riley says, I wonder. I have no inside info, and this is a serious charge against Bispop Clark’s character to just believe, on hearsay. And I don’t know Dan.
And yet, the holy priests of the diocese SEEM to be the most pushed-aside. And it can’t be denied that the most dissident DoR priests are the most rewarded and favored by Bishop Clark, no matter how bad their numbers are – and instead it even seems the more destructive/abusive to parishes they are, the more favored they are -(Fr. Ring, for example). And Clark certainly reserves the right to have the power to punish/reward with his arbitrary limited-term rule which does not serve the people but that, along with the power to close parishes arbitrarily, certainly serves a desire for such power. Yes, there is no question Clark practices favoritism and cronyism – but vengeance against priests? Who can say? Its a hush-hush matter (but God sees everything! Only a fool thinks he has secrets!).
Dan, you read about bishops that do the sort of thing in “Goodbye, Good Men” – and certainly Clark is like these bad bishops in many other ways. Still that does not prove what you say. But if its true what you say, it won’t remain hidden. When Clark and his cronies finally leave us, we will see the ordination of the priest who has waited 25 years, and other such secrets…
Dan, can you give a plausible scenario why the priest you mentioned and other similar victims of the alleged vengeance-personality would not come out and tell their stories?
While there might be instances where the Bishop has held a grudge… I don’t think ‘vengeance’ descibes the type of person he is at all… For instance he struggled a great deal with dealing with Fr. Callan. He showed great concern for the situation. Also, the Bishop has not sought vegenance against Fr. Antinarelli (as far as I’m aware) someone who clearly sees the church through a different lens than the bishop does… I would say we have if anything a very understanding and compassionate bishop… he does care about people a great deal.
Giovanni said: “While there might be instances where the Bishop has held a grudge…”
That’s a surprising and telling statement when it comes from such a strong Bishop Clark and DoR advocate.
“… I don’t think ‘vengeance’ descibes the type of person he is at all… For instance he struggled a great deal with dealing with Fr. Callan. He showed great concern for the situation…”
Yes, that is just the sort of situation Bishop Clark would have GREAT empathy for. He was wishy-washy with Callan, and not only concerned, but supportive. Inappropriately so! He should have been alarmed and concerned over the people Callan pulled from the flock.
“… Also, the Bishop has not sought vegenance against Fr. Antinarelli (as far as I’m aware) someone who clearly sees the church through a different lens than the bishop does…”
Hmm, well, I’m not so sure. I only know for certain that Fr Antinarelli is the kind of giant of a man who would NOT tell us how Bishop Clark mistreated him if Bishop Clark indeed did. (And vengeful people do take advantage of such moral giants. But they should beware because in the end, God comes to their assistance. And the Lord says: “Vengeance is mine”!)
So, its true – you would certainly not be aware.
Giovanni,
Isn’t it a bit puzzling Fr. Antinorelli and a few other “Faithful” priests have never been given as assignment to lead a parish in over 30 years? They have either been relagated to an assistant or have been completely forgotton.
OLV is not really a parish.
“OLV is not really a parish”.
Yes, what’s up with that? Something not right! Because why does Father call himself an “administrator” rather than a “priest” in the bulletin? This does NOT seem to be what Father would choose to call himself. Something strange here…
It makes you wonder because many of us are familiar with a Narcissistic persons and their unique worldview and behavior. They are notably charming and gracious in public, but when no one is looking and their privacy is assured, that’s when a very mean and heartless person can act out. I am not saying this is the case! How can I know? Perhaps what you see is what you get. I only see nice and gracious. Well…, except when his favorites like Fr. Ring follow his orders; the actions they take are NOT nice and gracious. And also its not gracious to ignore the pleas of the faithful, and publicly minimalize them, as Bishop Clark has consistently done.
So, how he treats moral giants in private, when he can count on their their dutiful respect for his excellent office to keep them from exposing him, is a big mystery we can’t know.
Perhaps I can lend a bit of insight here.
1) OLV/SJ is a canonical parish. It is not a geographic parish, but rather a personal parish. According to the DOR, “The parish also has members from throughout Monroe County who are attracted by the parish’s liturgical practice and theology.”. I am appalled that the diocese essentially admits that OLV has a different theology than that of the rest of the diocese…though it doesn’t admit that it’s not a different theology so much as it is THEOLOGY! (and DOR “theology” is merely heresy bordering on apostasy in some cases.
2) Pastors are granted certain rights under canon law. For instance a pastor cannot be thrown out onto the street at the Bishop’s whim. Once one has been named a pastor, he retains certain rights even if he is no longer a pastor. Fathers Antinarelli and Bonsignore have, to my knowledge, never been named pastor. This is the manner in which +Clark keeps them in line: they know they cannot irritate him too much, or they will face trouble. This is a major reason why there is no altar rail, ad orientem Masses, EF Masses, Latin novus ordo,etc. At OLV.
3) I do not believe +Clark’s abject failure to deal with Corpus Christi/Callan is indicative of compassion. False compassion, perhaps, but not compassion. Compassion is pity at another person’s sorrow or misfortune, with the desire to alleviate or, on occasion, even to suffer in the other’s stead. It is compassionate to work for the salvation of souls. It is not compassionate to risk that salvation by shirking one’s pastoral duty as Bishop and letting a parish go into formal schism. Let us recall, +Clark did not intervene until Rome forced his hand. He left it alone for years, rather than nipping the problem in he bud, and thus caused immeasurable damage. This failure to act was many things, but COMPASSIONATE is not one of them.
What is that big black box on the letter?
That’s the part where it says, “please disregard the rest of this letter” 😉
Just kidding – that’s my address which I’d rather not post for the world to see.
Thanks for explaining Abaccio.
Okay, so by depriving them of the name “pastor”, when they are in fact pastors, he can deprive them of their canonical rights. Just lovely. Sounds pretty vengeful and controlling to me. Not the nice, pleasant, gracious public face that is presented. Which I don’t trust. With good reason, I see.
Thanks for the good explanation of false compassion. False compassion, like false pleasantness and false graciousness .. makes you think of a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
I think Bishop Clark was very gracious with his letter. He acknowledged all of you even though you judge him so harshly. If he had not written that letter, you would rip him apart and when he does, you rip him apart. It’s a no win for Bishop Clark when dealing with you people. Sending him that boquet of prayers was a very mean thing to do.