Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Call To Action: “Without fear of being judged”

October 29th, 2011, Promulgated by b a

The following bulletin article comes to us from Fr. Bill Spilly (St. Elizabeth Ann Seton).

“Without fear of being judged”? It amazes me how anti-intellectual the spirit of the age is. It is well known that “Call to Action” is beyond suspect. I’m getting lazy in my research, but feel free to get started by following these links:

This one won’t work (more on Rich’s departure later):



27 Responses to “Call To Action: “Without fear of being judged””

  1. Bernie says:

    We see a lot of this kind of dribble on the part of our priests in this diocese. I really think it is in imitation of the way Bishop Clark writes and talks. You get a heavy dose of personal information on nieces and nephews (something like those Christmas letters we all send -and receive) and then a notice similar to this one where the writer is going to attend or has just returned from some dissident conference or retreat and how wonderful it is going to be, or was. The work of the Holy Spirit is usually associated with the workings of the dissidents who are bringing justice to the Church and the world free of anyone judging them -God forbid there should be any evaluation. It’s all junk! How about devoting bulletin space to some sound teaching on the faith, Father? Not your opinion or some dissident’s opinions; how about some presentation of the thinking of the Fathers of the Church or teachings from the Catechism, or notes from orthodox biblical commentaries?

  2. Scott W. says:

    Kinda reminds me of Tony Soprano’s club, the Ba da Bing! where he and his gangters could go without fear of being judged.

  3. JLo says:

    Intellects are darkened by all those little red legs scampering around, darting in and out and around such as this clueless priest (I’m thinking of those demons that followed/chased Judas to his hanging tree).

    And you’re so right, Bernie. All these vapid priests always have to tell you about all the people in their lives, how filled they are with those to love and those who love them, bla, bla, bla. YUK! This priest actually equates God’s LOVE with acceptance of all things human! The fool reduces God’s love to such a state of nothing, to all the touchy-feely social justice garbage we’re all so sick and tired of hearing about. It just must be said: this is truly amazing stupidity when found in the ordained! What fools; they belong to the prince of this world, not the King who reigns in our sanctuaries calling us to become as he so we can take our places near him as children of God in glory.

    This priest’s notice to THE FLOCK ENTRUSTED TO HIM is a clear example of moral relativism. Somewhere along the way (I presume he at one time understood the teachings of the Magisterium!) this priest gave in to all his own weaknesses; and instead of seeking the grace to rise above them, his lack of humility led him straight into Satan’s confusions. Problem is (especially for him) that there is a flock of people he is responsible for and some of them buy all this perverted description of what God’s love is and calls us to.

    Whenever I find this behavior in the ordained or religious, I want to ask them about their prayer life. Do you pray? A prayer life in Christ would never have led such as him where he is presently residing.

    I am so tired of these uninspired “leaders” who are uninspired because they stopped looking to Christ where he promised to be for us until the end of time… IN HIS CHURCH! All I can do is thank God for not being subject to this priest’s “leadership” and pray that Our Lady ask for graces to restore this priest to her Son before his relatives are flying in for his own sendoff.


  4. md0852 says:

    It is very disturbing and sad that a priest would go to something like this. To advertise it in a parish bulletin shows how comfortable he is with dissenting from church teaching. He obviously has no fear of being disciplined by anyone. Tragically he leads the people of his parish to believe that attending this type of event is “ok”. I feel sorry for priests like Fr. Spilly they have lost their way. He will be in my prayers.

  5. KMO says:

    This behavior has been going on for several years. He has been attending Call to Action meetings with Jim Callan and Mary Ramerman of the breakaway church of Spiritus Christi. Both Jim Callan and Mary Ramerman have been his traveling companions on several occasions to these meetings. We do not understand why Diocese of Rochester is not doing anything about this. This along with many other anomalies have been going on at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. Another mess for our new bishop to clean up when he arrives!

  6. militia says:

    If my parents named me
    Billy Spilly
    Would all my thoughts
    Be willy-nilly?

    Might I believe
    A schismatic silly?
    Wearing vestments
    Far too frilly?

    Or travel with
    An expelled dilly?
    If I were called
    Billy Spilly?

    Or be surprised
    By reception chilly?
    From those who live
    lives faith-fill-y?

    There seems no point
    To shally-shilly,
    When “Action Calls”
    to Billy Spilly.

  7. snowshoes says:

    If this were not a matter of abuse of office, we would be breaking the dictum of St. John Vianney regarding our priest pastors: “Whatever they are, do not speak against them.” But this is not regarding what Fr. Spilly is, but rather the public abuse of the children he has committed. This is much worse than physical child abuse, as horrible a crime as that is. But this is spiritual child abuse, a monstrous mortal sin. To attempt to dupe the children under his care into thinking that heresy is good is the depth of evil. It is a public outrage, and thus requires the formal action of every confirmed adult Catholic who knows of it. This must be stopped now by the bishop, or by Rome, if the bishop will not do his duty. Ss. Simon and Jude, pray for us.

  8. Richard Thomas says:

    This just tells you that the DOR and the schmatic church is much closer than one would think. After all, what the schismatics and the bishop advocate the same thing. So why not keep your friends close.

    If the DOR advocated this heresy, then they would never discipline any priest who promotes such behavior….Remember, Fr. Callan had done his thing for many years, under the watchful eye of the bishop, and could hace done so for many more years, had not the Vatican interviened.

    Think of any priest in the dioese who does anything one would consider heretetical. Have they ever been repromanded? NO.

    Have priests been punished for dissident behavior? No. By tolerance there is acceptance and encouragement of similar behavior.

    After Fr. Muggavero protested against abortion in the 1990’s. he was spoken to by the bishop. He has never done any such conduct again.

    And what about the really faithful priests here? You all know their fate.

    So the behavior by Fr. Spilly is just another manifestation of the rot brought into the diocese by this bishop.

  9. Dr. K says:

    Let’s not forget that the DoR regularly rubs elbows with schismatics from Spiritus Christi at the St. Joseph House of Hospitality.

    Our next bishop would be wise to completely end the diocese’s association with this Chava Redonnet (Spiritus priestess) led organization.

  10. Richard Thomas says:

    And yet, Rome has said and done NADA every time someone has gone there. It is a mystery why the Vatican never did anything to reign in this mess.

    If things get worse, then the blame is on Rome and the Papacy. Plain and simple!

  11. Jim says:

    Jim M. here…After reading these posts, I would have to say to those who commented: PLEASE hate the sin, but not the sinner! Name calling priests (clueless, vapid, fool, etc.) doesn’t help anything. I really don’t know Fr. Spilly, (though I did several years ago) and do not prescribe to anything that he is doing, and certainly do not condone any of his actions. But calling him names really isn’t what we Catholics are all about. He definitely needs prayers, so lets pray for him and for priests like him, who have strayed way off the path.

  12. brother of penance says:

    Oh well, what’s a Catholic striving to be faithful to the Church to do?

    Angrily spit out curses?
    Blame this or that one?
    Call the dissident priest names?

    No doubt it is frustrating. The whole thing boggles one’s mind? How can the bishop allow his
    priests to attend CALL TO ACTION, or any other group that rails against
    the Sacred Tradition of Christ’s Catholic Church? How could the Bishop of Rome not take action?

    Perhaps it has gotten so bad for so long everything seems to be out of control. Perhaps the Lord’s faithful remnant (God willing we belong therein and persevere by grace) is frightfully small. Or just perhaps the Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ wants to remind us that we are family and that some of our siblings need a double portion of love, prayer and firm correction. (Or just maybe all of this confusion is some how good for us. Some how all of this
    which makes no sense helps us to look to Jesus, trust his Holy Name and continue continuing on.)

    Beloved Cleansingfiredor family, the priest still belongs to God’s family. The gathered assembly at CALL TO ACTION still belong to God’s family. They need our love, our prayer and our firm fraternal correction. Will we offer them what they need most? Or will we just give in to the urge to spit curses, blame this one or that one and call the dissidents names?

    One last thought prompted by Jlo who wrote: “Whenever I find this behavior in the ordained or religious, I want to ask them about their prayer life. Do you pray? A prayer life in Christ would never have led such as him where he is presently residing.”

    Throughout Church history there have been those who prayed to Christ fervently who did not believe everything taught by Christ’s Catholic Church. None of us can question their sincerity, fervency in prayer or heartfelt convictions. The Church bears God’s Revelation in Christ Jesus. The Church proclaims Christ and teaches Truth. All any of us can do is observe. We hear and see that many say no to Christ’s Church and as such say no to Christ.

    Outside the Church we name these brothers and sisters separated. Within the Church, oh well, I guess there are other names for these our siblings who reject the One they say they love.

    Let us continue to keep our eyes and ears open. But let us also love, pray and offer fraternal correction in hope they will turn away from the errors and turn toward their Savior and ours.

  13. Dr. K says:

    “But calling him names really isn’t what we Catholics are all about.”

    Didn’t Christ refer to corrupt religious leaders as broods of vipers, foxes, and fools?

  14. brother of penance says:

    Dr. K, yes, Our Blessed Lord did call some folks “broods of vipers, foxes and fools”.

    To you and me, however, the same Lord, Our God, says in the Douay-Rheims Bible:

    “But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

    Let me be the first to admit, I have done what the Lord Christ commanded me not to do.
    I have sinned.

    I think it is very importaant to recognize the sin of name calling and ask for mercy and grace to do it no more.

    Brother Jim is correct in writing :“But calling him names really isn’t what we Catholics are all about.”

    Jim, I think it fair to say that you and I are of one mind on this particular subject.

  15. Jim says:

    Jim M. here: Yes, Our Lord did use those names, but He is the Incarnate Son of God…I would say that He definitely has the clout to do so…but I am not sure that He would want us to do the same.

  16. Diane Harris says:

    I post this one with fear and trepidation, but I believe it needs to be said. First, error deep in the bone comes at least in part from cowardice on the part of those who should know better but refuse to confront individuals ranging from a pro-abortion legislator who receives Communion to a pro-women’s ordination dissident who is gravely divisive to the flock on a matter of Church teaching. Why do they fail to correct and confront those who should be corrected and confronted? In part it seems to be because most people want everybody to like them, to not rock the boat, to not get called into the Bishop’s office, to not drive contributors away from the church, etc. Why else? Because, quite frankly, the leadership which fails in this regard often has absolutely no idea how to charitably and constructively correct; they prefer to salve their consciences with pious and ambivalent words that they can feel were corrective (or at a minimum “informative”) without ever producing the trauma of a real conversion effect. They create more like a confusion effect, and with the errant individual leaving feeling validated or at least emotionally hugged. NO WONDER we never learn how to do it right…..where are our examples among the ordained?

    So as faithful and orthodox laity try to do what we can, it is truly a struggle, as the above CF exchange shows. No matter how hard we pray, we will NOT each draw the line in the same place. (And a variety of styles may well be needed.) Actually, I bet no two of us draw the line in the same place. But what we should have in common is realizing that it is not only the Bishop’s obligation to correct, and also the priest’s, but that every one of us has the obligation to the Spiritual Works of Mercy to admonish sinners and to instruct the ignorant.

    It seems, however, that even to call someone a sinner or ignorant is seen as uncharitable. How can that be? Which will Christ take more seriously at judgment? Failure to admonish a sinner in a politically correct way? Or failure to admonish the sinner at all? I have an opinion that failure to admonish at all is the greater failure (and we know that Scripture does differentiate between the seriousness of sins.) Remember too that Ezekiel recounts in 3:18:

    “If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.”

    So, does Christ call Peter “Satan” and use words like fox, whitened sepulchers, and “perverse” generation because He is showing off what He can do but we can’t? Or is He giving us examples of how far we might go IF NECESSARY to get the message through to someone? Worth pondering. If language is too soft and smooth and oblique, have we met our obligation to admonish the sinner at all? I doubt it.

    How can Paul express his wish that the circumcision party members castrate themselves? Or recount his harsh language to Peter regarding Peter’s refusing to eat with Gentiles? Or speak as he does of Alexander the coppersmith? How can John the Baptist speak of a brood of vipers? Or Jeremiah and Elijah correct the people of Israel with the language they used? What about Athanasius to Arius? Thomas Aquinas and Dun Scotus? And St. Jerome certainly had his strong comments too!

    Have we totally missed the mark today by being tainted ourselves by political correctness? Valid correction is not the same as anger; we need not be angry at all at someone we correct (we should love him or her) but cutting off that which causes a people to sin, including by showing the disobedience, stupidity or recklessness of what they do (in a culture which can’t even reconcile “making nice” with “telling the truth”) is the very basis of excommunication. In some eras of history it was exile, in other cultures “shunning,” but separating the sinner who refuses to repent from those who will be damaged by the sinner isn’t innately uncharitable, is it? Of course we should pray. And of course we should especially pray for the sinner. But I am not convinced that all the examples of the Bible (especially among those other than Christ) are all exceptions; I think they are there for a reason.

    In my opinion, priests such as Fr. Spilly should be rejected by the people for the people’s own protection and to produce change of heart in the sinner, and our equivocating on the point, tip-toeing around the tough issues, won’t help abused souls. It won’t even help our own souls.

  17. brother of penance says:

    Thank you, Diane Harris, for your comment. You have given us much to ponder. Thank you, again.

  18. brother of penance says:

    ….those who should know better…….

    There have been many poorly formed in the faith. Sometimes the “knowing better” depends upon one’s access to really good Catholic resources and resource people. Those who have been exposed only to the dissident theologians and their less than orthodox works might be deprived of the really good and thus do not know better. Perhaps they are the deceived.


    There have been those times when I was cowardly; unwilling to confront; afraid of losing approval. May God forgive us cowardice because of the desire for man’s acceptance. May God give us Holy Boldness to speak the truth in love no matter the cost.

    Diane Harris is correct. We must admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant; even if they are our pastoral leaders.

    Failure to admonish at all is definitely greater the sin than failure to admonish political correctly.

    Diane Harris’ reminders of Ezekiel, Paul, St. Jerome, St Anthanasius, Jeremiah, Elijah, Thomas Aquinas and Dun Scotus are good reminders of those who loved God and God’s acceptance more than the admiration of the world and men of the world.

    Perhaps it would help us to reflect on our motivation. Why do I call attention to the errors of others? Hopefully it is for the love of God, his truth and for the love of the brother desiring his restoration.

    Diane Harris, you have given us much to ponder.

  19. Raymond F. Rice says:

    To: JLo:

    Matthew 5:11


  20. Raymond F. Rice says:

    Richard Thomas!!

    Use your spell check when writing your comments. Ohterwise you read as ignorant.

  21. Raymond F. Rice says:

    Richard: the word is otherwise!!!LOL LOL LOL

  22. Raymond F. Rice says:

    Diane Harris’s comments show her to be a spiritual daughter of St Catherine of Siena. Her talents are needed in the Church! So maybe we need a greater role for women in the Church after all!!??!!??

  23. Diane Harris says:

    Before I sign off for the night, I just want to thank Brother of Penance for his willingness to “ponder” and to share the results of that pondering. His comments about motivation are particularly helpful, and a call to always and continually examine our own motives. Thank you for that reminder, Brother of Penance. I too understand those moments of cowardice, and it takes time and prayer to come to a point of being able to rejoice in suffering for Christ, as Peter and John were able to do in leaving the Sanhedrin. I believe that it is the Holy Spirit who gives us the words and the courage and also the right timing (something else to ponder). Yet, doesn’t He also let us fail often enough so that we can be reminded that whatever we are able to do is through His Grace. Holy Spirit, thank you!

    I have written elsewhere on CF in a book review of Forward in Hope that no viable role for women (or men either) can ever be founded in disobedience to the Church’s teaching. That is why Bishop Clark’s concentration on an expanded role for women by winking at their intrusion into the male-only priesthood (including substituting for a priest in pastoral leadership) is doomed as disobedient and improper. In my opinion, such policy concentrates excessive resources on a very small percentage of dissidents in narrow roles without a future, at the expense of a proper increase in obedient involvement of women as witnesses to the work and service which they can justly and faithfully render. Come Holy Spirit! St. Catherine, pray for us all.

  24. Gretchen says:

    “…if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate, even publicly.” — Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

    See here:

    (Article 4, Reply to Objection 2)

    Gretchen from SOP

  25. annonymouse says:

    Father Spilly’s actions (and his flaunting them to the Faithful) make me ill. His implicit dissent undermines what Holy Mother Church is trying to teach her children, and such action brings about great disunity. This is diabolic (which means to dis-unify), and comes not from the Holy Spirit.

    By his implicit support of same-sex marriage (through active support of a group dedicated to undermine the Church’s teaching in this arena), he is brazenly denying the Church’s teaching that the acts of such relationships are objectively disordered and gravely sinful. If he were just one of the Faithful, he would do so at his own peril. In his role as a shepherd of the sheep, I should think his responsibility is greatly heightened.

    I pray that Father Spilly may be in-Spired to submit to the teaching authority of Jesus’ Church and stop leading people astray. I pray that 2011 may be the last such conference that Father Spilly dares to attend.

  26. annonymouse says:

    Habemus Nuncio – for anyone who cares to let Rome know about this.

  27. Raymond F. Rice says:

    Habemus nuncio!!!!!!!! Roma et nuncio habent aures sed non audiant!!!

    Does anyone EVER wonder what happened to all the critical letters ,complaints, audio tapes, videotapes etc that have been sent to Rome? I know of no one (including myself) who has ever received a response of any kind from the nuncio or the Vatican on these issues?? Why does the Vatican ignore us?? Is it a credibility issue or just bad business manners?

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-