Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Lay-Run Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester

Posts Tagged ‘Fr. Dennis Shaw’

Diocese of Rochester Procedure Regarding Sexual Abuse

December 13th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

The following is an excerpt from the diocese’s procedures for dealing with sexual abuse by clergy. You can read the entire document by clicking here. This should help everyone understand the current situation with Fr. Dennis Shaw, and what is going on behind the scenes right now. Emphasis added.

“E. INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS/RESPONSE
When an allegation of sexual abuse is made, the Bishop’s delegate organizes the investigation promptly as the circumstances demand. The delegate or a member of the Review Board speaks directly with the parties involved. Persons other than the alleged victim or the accused cleric may be consulted as needed. A written report of the investigation and its findings is prepared.

1. VALID COMPLAINT
If the Review Board determines that there is probable cause and that a valid complaint exists, they meet with the Bishop and present their written report of the investigation, its findings of fact, and their recommended actions.
The ultimate goal of the Diocese is to give pastoral care that results in healing for all directly involved. Once an allegation is determined to be valid, representative(s) of the Diocese meet with the victim and/or their family to discuss the Diocese’s findings and appropriate treatment or therapy. Anyone victimized by sexual abuse by a cleric has the right to expect meaningful pastoral assistance from the church to enable that person’s holistic healing.
Appropriate treatment will vary by individual. The Diocese will provide reasonable assistance with a victim’s treatment or counseling with support determined by the recommended course of therapy.

If an allegation is determined to be valid, the Bishop will place the cleric on administrative leave. The cleric may not reside in parish or diocesan housing. Those closest to the cleric’s official assignment, including staff and parishioners, have the right to be told of the Bishop’s decision but not the details of the allegation. The obligation of sustenatio will be satisfied.

The accused cleric is subject to all aspects of canon and civil law that apply and will be advised of his canonical rights and his right to retain legal counsel. If the accused cleric admits his guilt, the Bishop will remove the cleric permanently from any assignment, place him on administrative leave and remove him from the parish residence. Other restrictions may be placed upon the cleric by competent authority. All appropriate parties will be notified of these actions.

Upon being placed on administrative leave by the Bishop, the cleric may receive psychological and psychiatric evaluation at a recognized facility of the Bishop’s choice as quickly as scheduling permits. Such assessment will include a complete course of action specific to the individual. The cleric will be asked to provide appropriate releases in accord with civil law.

2. INVALID COMPLAINT
If the Review Board and the Bishop agree that there is no probable cause to believe that alleged sexual abuse occurred, the investigation and response process will ordinarily be suspended. The file of the investigation will be retained. The Bishop will ensure that the accused and the alleged victim are notified of the termination of the investigation.

3. INCONCLUSIVE COMPLAINT
If the Review Board and the Bishop agree that an allegation is unfounded but that the accused cleric has or may have acted imprudently, the Bishop may restrict actions of the cleric and require that he be supervised, monitored, evaluated, or counseled while ensuring that the cleric’s canonical and civil rights are upheld.  “

It would appear, based upon the fact that Fr. Shaw was suspended from executing priestly ministry, that the diocese has determined the allegation to be a “valid complaint.” What the end result of all this will be remains uncertain. Stay tuned, and continue to pray for all those involved.

Tags: ,
Comments: 2 Comments »

Fr. Dennis Shaw Suspended Over Sex Abuse Allegation

December 12th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

Dear readers, we are now able to elaborate upon and confirm the report from last evening that a Rochester priest has been suspended over allegations of sexual abuse of a minor. Fr. Dennis Shaw, an active priest and parochial administrator of Holy Family church in Auburn, has been suspended by the Diocese of Rochester for abuse allegations that date back to the 1970s during his assignment at the now-defunct St. Francis of Assisi church. Fr. Shaw has been administrator of Holy Family church since 2005. His previous assignments include Our Lady of Mt. Carmel and St. Francis Xavier in the city.

Most readers may remember Fr. Shaw best for his dissenting comments against the Holy Father, the hierarchy, conservatives, and the Church in general (see Fr. Shaw tag to right). Regardless of one’s personal feelings toward this man, he is in his hour of need, and he should receive our prayers. I ask you all to pray for the Lord’s comfort upon Fr. Shaw, as well as the alleged victim.

I understand that this is an emotionally charged time for many, so I must ask that our readers avoid posting the following types of comments. If any of the following appear, they will be deleted or edited ASAP:

1) Any sort of celebration over this situation. While one may have liked to see this priest removed for his dissenting comments, I am sure nobody would wish accusations like this upon a fellow child of Christ. These accusations could remain with him for the rest of his life. Please show respect.

2) Any judgment placed upon him, or assumption of guilt. Let the investigation take place.

3) Any attack on the Catholic Church or the priesthood. Keep that garbage for the liberal media discussion boards where the anti-Catholics will have a field day.

4) Any accusation that the Catholic Church or conservatives are at fault as part of some kind of conspiracy. I do not want to see blame thrown around. If he is guilty, then the victim deserves peace. If he is innocent, then he deserves to be free of this accusation.

5) Any attack on the alleged victim

Please keep Fr. Shaw and the alleged victim(s) in your prayers. May God’s will be done.

Update 10:12 PM - The diocese has issued a press release available here.

Update 12/13/2010 – The story has been picked up by the Associated Press. Click here to see the report on the Wall Street Journal site.

Note: If you need to report a sexual abuse allegation to the diocese, then please contact Barbara Pedeville at 585-328-3228, ext. 1215 (toll-free 1-800-388- 7177, ext. 1215), or by e-mail at: pedeville@dor.org . Dealing with sexual abuse allegations is something that Bishop Clark and the diocese have done well in recent years, and they should be able to help you deal with your problem. Thank you.

Tags: ,
Comments: 94 Comments »

Shaw Say, Part III

October 1st, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

Fr. Dennis Shaw, Parochial Administrator of Holy Family church in Auburn, has made several outrageous comments through the years against the Church and our current Pope. You can review these for yourself in any of the previous posts in the “Shaw Says” series: here, here and here. If you thought that this priest could not sink any lower in his hatred for the Roman Catholic Church, you’re wrong. Fr. Shaw unleashes yet another verbal assault in the September 26th edition of the Holy Family bulletin.

Without further ado, here is the latest bulletin blunder from Fr. Shaw:

“BENEDICT IN SEARCH OF…

Dear Friends,

Pope Benedict’s recent journey to England shows him at his best [He means that sarcastically, of course]. One of his prime preoccupations seems to be to reach out to other religions in the hope of bringing them “home” to the Catholic Church [Isn't that the major thrust behind the ecumenical movement? Aren't we trying to reunite all Christians under the one, true Catholic Church? Or do we not care about the salvation of those who are outside the Church? I would hardly call ecumenism the Pope's "prime preoccupation," but  reunion of the scattered flock is certainly something important to this Pope, as it should be to all of us. Love for our neighbor demands that we care about their immortal soul]. The reaching out is assuredly commendable even if the rather narrow-minded goal is not [What is narrow-minded about wishing for all Christians to be united with the Holy Father in the Catholic Church?]. One of the great historical scandals is the division of Christendom. Where there stood one Christian church for a thousand years there now are so many entities that even Christ Himself must have trouble remembering them all! [Technically, there have been divisions from the very beginning. Disunity did not suddenly begin 1,000 years ago. The Assyrian church is an example of one of the many early splits in Christianity.] Of course Rome’s opinion that she is the only true church and unity will only be accomplished when all of the wayward children are willing to admit their error and recant is not likely to lead to one big happy family any time soon [This isn't just "Rome's opinion" that the Catholic Church is the one true church, it is FACT. Christ established His Church under the leadership of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on earth. Who is the successor of Peter? Pope Benedict. Are you suggesting, Father, that the Catholic Church is not the one true church? If so, why are you a Catholic priest, let alone a Catholic? These other churches are in error, and they will need to accept the teachings of the Church before reunion is a possibility. Take a look at the Traditional Anglican Communion. They have accepted the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and as a result, are pursuing reunion. Despite your grand pessimism, unity is possible under the Catholic Church. We do not need to eliminate the Catholic Church and create some new ecumenical religion that genuflects to error in the interest of promoting unity. In fact, such a thing would be impossible for many people would surely split off over any rejection of truth by the Church. Get ready for this next part...]. Is it possible that Constantinople had reason to divorce itself from the west a thousand years ago? Is it possible that Martin Luther correctly confronted serious abuses in the Catholic hierarchy? Is it possible that some contemporary Christian religions more clearly reveal some of God’s truth than the Roman church? [Don't you dare go running to the defense of the Eastern Orthodox, or the Protestants, or the Tabernacle of Joyful Praise church on Lake Avenue! These various denominations have split with the Church because they have freely chosen to reject the doctrines of the Catholic faith and embrace their own errors. These various denominations have decided that they themselves are the sole determiners of the truth, completely ignoring the authority Christ granted to St. Peter and the Church. It is not "every man decides what is truth." This is for the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and governed by Christ, to decide. Number 85 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads, "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." (CCC 85).  This authority has not been granted to these schismatic religions, but to the Catholic Church. ]

At the same time that the pope is so anxious to extend the hand of brotherhood to those who are not of his “flock” why does he seem so eager to antagonize others who are? [I doubt the Holy Father intends to antagonize anyone. He has a duty to protect the truth and to teach it faithfully, regardless of whether or not the truth is popular to our contemporary ears. Remember, "I charge thee... preach the word, be urgent in season, our of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:1-2). Would Father Shaw rather have the Pope manipulate the truth so as to please our itchy ears? Not everyone is going to like the truth, but the Church must teach "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."] I am thinking especially of gays, lesbians and women in general. [Remember, he is pro- women ordination.] Some of the most horrific statements made by church people about homosexuals have been uttered during Pope Benedict’s watch. [Furnish examples, Father, of these "most horrific statements" and demonstrate that these so-called "horrific statements" are contrary to the doctrines of our faith. Homosexual acts are a SIN. There is no way around it. If you are offended by the truth, then perhaps you should pop open your Bible and educate yourself on the matter.] The fact that he does not disown these remarks or refute them must mean that he is in agreement [Just like if Bishop Clark does not disown your dissenting remarks then he is in agreement with what you say?]. The fact that the Catholic catechism continues to describe homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” is not only an egregious insult it might also offend the God who is the only Creator of us all [The greater insult is that a Roman Catholic priest is calling part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church an "egregious insult" and and offense to God.]

When Jesus walked the earth He often said that His primary mission was to His own – the house of Israel. It would be uplifting if the current Holy Father felt the same way. [Did not Jesus also say in the parable of the lost sheep: "What man of you having a hundred sheep, and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which is lost until he finds it?" (Luke 15: 4). It would seem that the Holy Father is taking the same approach. Protestants and all non-Catholics are the lost sheep who have strayed from the one true Church. The Pope is doing what any good shepherd would do, and that is to seek out his lost sheep and bring them back into the fold. It was what Christ did.]

Shalom,
Fr. Dennis”

The original bulletin article (click on it to see full size):

Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments: 15 Comments »

The theologians’ rejection of Humanae Vitae: How it all went down

August 6th, 2010, Promulgated by Mike

In Shaw Says II Dr. K treated us to a little gem from Fr. Denis Shaw.  Commenting on a recent Vatican statement Fr. Shaw wrote,

I’m sure there will be as much and similar attention paid to this statement as there was to Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.

I have no doubt Fr. Shaw was referring to the near total apathy shown this encyclical by the majority of the American Catholic laity.  But, while that may have been the situation for many years now, it was certainly not the situation when Humanae Vitae first came out in 1968.  Back then many people paid a lot of attention to it.

Sadly, most of them were dissident Catholic theologians, with one of the leading dissenters being DOR’s own Fr. Charles Curran.

Writing in 1988, B. A. Santamaria described the events of those days as follows …

Humanae Vitae was signed on 25 July 1968. It was released on 27 July, and presented to the media in Rome on 29 July. The New York morning papers on the 29th reported the Holy Father’s confirmation of the traditional teaching.

According to his own account, a copy of the encyclical had been obtained by Fr Charles Curran some days before its presentation to the media and even before its distribution to the bishops. It was therefore possible for him, together with his theological and academic associates, to concoct a plan of operation to destroy the encyclical and the authority on which it rested.

Hence on the following morning, 30 July, by means of a carefully-planned coup de theatre, which proved that the dissident theologians fully understood the role of the media in abetting the religious revolution, the Catholics of the United States were the first to be informed that large numbers of the most distinguished theologians of the West held that the people had the right in conscience to set aside the Pope’s teaching on moral questions without calling into question their membership of the Catholic Church.

That the coup de theatre was organised and had a conscious purpose is supported by evidence provided by Fr Curran himself who wrote: “Our quick, purposeful response supported by so many theologians, accomplished its purpose. The day after the encyclical was promulgated, Catholics could read in the morning papers about their right to dissent and the fact that in theory Catholics could disagree with the papal teaching.”

From this carefully organised campaign have flown most of the troubles which have disturbed the Church over the past twenty years.

Baltimore’s Lawrence Cardinal Shehan, quoted by James Francis Cardinal Stafford in “The Year of the Peirasmos – 1968” (an essay I cannot recommend too highly), gave us this take on the revolt …

[A]fter receiving the first news of the publication of the encyclical, the Rev. Charles E. Curran, instructor of moral theology of The Catholic University of America, flew back to Washington from the West where he had been staying. Late [on the afternoon of July 29], he and nine other professors of theology of the Catholic University met, by evident prearrangement, in Caldwell Hall to receive, again by prearrangement with the Washington Post, the encyclical, part by part, as it came from the press. The story further indicated that by nine o’clock that night, they had received the whole encyclical, had read it, had analyzed it, criticized it, and had composed their six-hundred word ‘Statement of Dissent.’ Then they began that long series of telephone calls to ‘theologians’ throughout the East, which went on, according to the Post, until 3:30 A.M., seeking authorization, to attach their names as endorsers (signers was the term used) of the statement, although those to whom they had telephoned could not have had an opportunity to see either the encyclical or their statement. Meanwhile, they had arranged through one of the local television stations to have the statement broadcast that night.

Cardinal Stafford went on to add,

[Cardinal Shehan’s] judgment was scornful. In 1982 he wrote, “The first thing that we have to note about the whole performance is this: so far as I have been able to discern, never in the recorded history of the Church has a solemn proclamation of a Pope been received by any group of Catholic people with so much disrespect and contempt.”

Finally, Gary Dorrien, in his 2008 book Social Ethics in the Making – Interpreting an American Tradition, tells the story this way …

For years Curran told lecture audiences that the mere existence of a papal birth control commission showed that a change in Church teaching was conceivable. In 1968 his hope soared after a majority of the pope’s commission favored a change, until Curran learned that the pope was leaning the other way. Through the media Curran and others appealed to the pope, urging that issuing no encyclical would be better than the catastrophe of reaffirming the contraception ban. On July 27, 1968 Time magazine informed Curran that the pope had answered, showing him an advance copy of Humanae vitae. Two days later it was published; in the meantime, Curran organized an unprecedented protest …

Ten theologians at Catholic University met to formulate a response, drafted by Curran and Daniel Maguire, which emphasized that Catholic doctrine recognized the right to dissent from noninfallible teaching. Releasing their statement to the media on July 30, with endorsements from 87 American Catholic theologians, Curran’s group announced its dissent at a press conference. The statement set off a barrage of condemnations, praise, and puzzled commentary that such a thing was possible. Nothing like an organized public dissent from papal teaching had ever occurred in American Catholicism. Twenty Catholic University professors supported the dissent, including theologians Bernard McGinn, Roland E. Murphy, and David Tracy; eventually more than 600 Catholic scholars signed it …”

And so I believe Fr. Shaw has overlooked the intense, highly organized, negative reception first accorded Humanae Vitae by a sizable number of Catholic theologians.  It is largely because of this attention in 1968 – and its lingering effects on many of our clergy – that so many American Catholics ignore Humanae Vitae today.

Update: A comment below states, “Fr. Curran to this day still claims the dissident response was spontaneous and not organized!”

Fr. Curran seems to have forgotten what he, himself, wrote in his 2006 book, Loyal Dissent:

[In late July, 1968] it was rumored that the pope’s encyclical on the subject [of artificial contraception] was about to be released. I consulted with some of my colleagues, and with others around the country, about how we should respond to the encyclical. It was my view that we theologians should issue a statement disagreeing with the encyclical if it proved to be as negative as we expected.

That sounds a lot more like premeditation than spontaneity.

Tags: , ,
Comments: 3 Comments »

Shaw Says II

August 5th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

Once again we will take a look at the  rantings of Fr. Denis Shaw, parochial administrator of Holy Family church in Auburn. The format is the same as before: a passage from Fr. Shaw will be posted with emphasis added as needed, and my comments will follow in red text.

6/27/2010 - “If we like this philosophy of taxing those whose “sins” cost all of us more money and inconvenience our life styles why don’t we go after the biggest culprit — obesity! Obesity for Americans and especially children has reached epidemic proportions. Instead of targeting “those” people — smokers and drinkers why don’t we go after the “big” sinners? That would probably raise enough tax money that all of our elected leaders could get a nice raise and support more pork barrel projects.”

Really? I thought the progressives were supposed to be the compassionate ones. This was an unnecessary, nasty attack against Americans who are overweight. I don’t think it is appropriate to compare obesity with smoking or drinking. With smoking and drinking, the person makes a voluntary decision to take up an activity that (at least today) they know carries significant health and addiction risks. Obesity, on the other hand, could be argued to be hereditary for many people. Additionally, obesity may be related to economic status since all those healthy “organic” foods cost a lot more. Do some people intentionally make bad food choices like pigging out on McDonalds? Sure. However, that does not explain why all obese Americans are overweight.

7/25/2010 – “Some generations past it was decided to “lock” the electing cardinals in the Sistine Chapel for the length of time it took them to elect a new leader. No one was allowed in or out (unless a cardinal died) until they had done their duty. Maybe we could adopt this same process in order to secure a new budget in Albany. Imagine if they were all locked up together until someone showed some leadership. (Of course with the cardinals there is always the danger that if they were all locked up in one place someone might throw away the key and we would never hear from them again!)”

We get it already; you don’t like the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Like them or not, they are your superiors, and they deserve your respect as an employee.

7/25/2010 - “Are all laws that “flexible”? Maybe I should try that with a State Trooper the next time I get stopped (Do they really get $85,000 a year after five years? If so, the accusing business pays a heck of a lot better than the “forgiving” business!)”

I personally know a number of State Troopers, and I assure you, they are not in the “accusing business.” These officers are out there putting their lives in danger in order to keep us safe. Remember that the next time there is a crazed serial killer and you need the police to step in and save lives. Remember that the next time a woman is being threatened with violence by a dirt bag ex-husband and needs the police to step in for her safety. Accusing business? More like life-saving business.

7/25/2010 - “In another seemingly incredible pronouncement from Pope Benedict last week a document declared that among the grave sins a cleric could commit were sexual abuse of minors (ok, fair enough) and those who would advocate for the ordination of women! I’m sure there will be as much and similar attention paid to this statement as there was to Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. Hopefully Albany will not pay much attention to this or they might decide to deny women the right to hold public office – or even vote for those who do!”

Progressives need to stop mixing the religious with the secular. The oppression of women in our social/economic/political systems up until the modern feminist movement was a man-made action. The ordination of men alone to the priesthood, on the other hand, is not man-made but God-made! Pop open your Bible sometime. There may be a thick layer of dust on it, but the answer is tucked away in there. Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, one in being with the Father, selected for His priestly ministry twelve MALE Apostles. Yes, they were male. One need only read the names of the Apostles to realize that. It was to these twelve men that Jesus gave the authority to preach his word, to expel demons, and to cure the sick. Read Mark 3:14-15- “He appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) that they might be with him and he might send them forth to preach and to have authority to drive out demons.” Also read Matthew 10:1- “Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.” Did Jesus give this authority to the Blessed Virgin? No. Did he give it to Martha? No. How about Mary of Magdala? Nope.  Christ chose men to carry out his priestly ministry. If you progressives wish to continue crying ‘foul!’, then direct your anger where it truly belongs; at the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now on to your H.V. comment… It’s truly a shame that more people do not take Humanae Vitae to heart. One of the reasons why they don’t is because our priests have done a terrible job defending the teachings contained within the document. If priests like yourself would recognize that it is their duty to faithfully instruct the people on the teachings of the Church, then H.V. would be more widely accepted and followed. The same is true with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (document which deals with ordination). It’s because we have too many priests out there undermining the Church, and getting away with it, that the lay faithful feel that they can do the same. When our priests finally return to being faithful shepherds of the Church will we witness the laity better respect the Church’s teachings.

By the way, if priests, bishops, and priestess wannabes do not take the Vatican norms seriously, then they will be automatically excommunicated. So…

8/8/2010 - “Howcome, we cannot ordain women because Jesus didn’t but we can ordain Europeans and Americans even though He didn’t do that either. And howcome [sic] Jesus ordained married guys but we won’t?”

At first glance this may sound like a good argument, but it really isn’t. Jesus didn’t ordain Europeans and Americans because he lived in the Holy Land. Were Europeans and Americans walking around the streets of Jerusalem and following Him on His mission, I’m sure He would have given them consideration. Women, on the other hand, were all around Him. Throughout the New Testament we see women listening to His word and tending to His wounds. Jesus did not ordain women, when He just as easily could have done so. The progressives always like to point out what a “revolutionary” Jesus was (He really wasn’t…). How come He didn’t take the “radical” step of ordaining women? If Jesus said, “This is Mary Magdalene, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” I am sure the Apostles would have followed, even if they might have been a bit offended by this as a result of living in a different society/time period. Jesus did not do this! He ordained men, and men alone. The fact that they were Jewish men is a matter of geographic convenience.

True, Jesus ordained “married guys” to the priesthood. That is why the Eastern rites permit married men to be ordained as priests (not priests to become married men). There are several reasons why the discipline of clerical celibacy in the Latin rite is important and should continue. One reason is that the job of priest is so demanding that it would be unfair for the woman in marriage because the priest would not be able to devote enough time to wife and family. So many of our priests today are experiencing burnout (right, Mr. Grosswirth?). How can we reasonably expect these men to be able to juggle priesthood with marriage and taking care of (possibly several) children? The priest is already married to his Church, and already has children that need his care, which is his flock. Another reason is that the priest is an alter-Christi. There is no mention in the sacred scriptures of Jesus ever having married or fathered children. As an alter-Christi, the priest is called to imitate Christ not only at the altar during Mass, but in the way he lives his daily life.

When will the progressives learn? See previous post in this series for more of Fr. Shaw’s rants.

Tags: , , ,
Comments: 3 Comments »

Shaw Says

June 18th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

If you thought the attacks Fr. Dennis Shaw wrote against the Holy Father in this past week’s Holy Family (Auburn) bulletin were a jaw dropper, wait until you read some of these excerpts from his other bulletin pieces. These passages range from the idiotic, to the far left, to the flaming dissent. Emphasis and commentary added.

Caution: Cleansing Fire will not be responsible for any unhealthy increases in blood pressure that may result from reading these comments. Read at your own risk.

1. 3/28/2010- “After decades of trying the country finally has some form of health care for most Americans. While the bill was not perfect it was better than the almost nothing that it replaced. It is a scandal that the richest country in the history of the world does not provide quality health care for all of its citizens. Europeans look at us and shake their heads wondering when we will emerge from the frontier mentality that prides individuality and self-reliance more than a sense of mutual responsibility and the common good.”

Socialism. Health insurance is not a right; never has been one; never should be one. Also, to extract money from one group of people to give to another is called stealing. “Thou shalt not steal,” remember?

2. 3/28/2010- “Abraham Lincoln was willing to go to war to preserve the union and now there are millions who would attend a “tea party” to dissolve it.”

Unnecessary and baseless attack against conservatives. Tea party folk are not trying to “dissolve” the union.

3. 3/28/2010- “But there was one critically important bright spot in all of this. In the final week before the vote a group of women’s religious leaders (representing thousands of nuns in America) took the American bishops to task for their attempts to derail this legislation. Where the bishops claimed to be the voice that spoke for American Catholics these brave women announced that they would speak for  themselves! They urged congress to pass this critical legislation and let it be known that there were plenty of good Catholics who would not be cowed or coerced by the bishops.“

The American bishops were rightly concerned about the abortion language in the Obamacare bill. The U.S. nuns dissented from the bishops, and decided themselves that fighting to save the lives of the unborn is not a significant priority compared to the luxury of health insurance.

4. 3/28/2010- “This is a very important step forward in the whole Catholic Church coming to identify its essence with something more than the bullying of the hierarchy. 2010 will certainly be remembered as the year that landmark legislation was passed to provide health insurance for all Americans. It might be remembered even more as the year when America’s Catholics finally were able to say, “This church belongs to all of us!””

It’s evident that Fr. Shaw is anti-hierarchy. He speaks very much like a Spiritus Christi member. Is it appropriate for a priest to refer to his Church as a bully? Is it right for a priest to celebrate rebellion against our Church? The hierarchy is very much a part of our Church, instituted by Christ in naming some to be Apostles. We have enough attacks to deal with from outside, we don’t need any more from within.

5. 4/4/2010- “Wouldn’t it bring hope to disillusioned hearts if religious leaders would learn to lead by example rather than by decree?”

What would you describe what Pope Benedict has been doing during his papacy? Oh, that’s right, you referred to his papacy as the “imperial papacy of the 21st century.” The Holy Father has imposed nothing on anyone. All he has done is lead by example. His liturgies, and the reverence present in them, are examples for all liturgies across the world. The reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling at Pope Benedict’s Masses are also an example that all should follow. The Holy Father has NOT required that Communion be distributed in this matter. So, is the Holy Father leading by example, or by decree?

6. 5/16/2010- “The Second Vatican Council took shape in Pope John XXIII’s mind about fifty years ago. Many people have since decried the council as the reason for all things wrong with the Roman Catholic Church in the wake of Roncalli’s brainchild. Critics complain that the council caved in to the forces of “modernism” and the secular revolution that was fomenting at the same time. Many have said that the council attempted to transform the church too quickly and too soon. In fact, it came too late.“

Came too late? I’d wager a large sum that had the Council imposed the changes it had at some earlier date, the pews in our churches would be even emptier than they are today. How about this, Father Shaw; I propose that the revised English translation of the Roman Missal to use a more accurate translation has come too late.

7. 5/16/2010-”Trent caused the church leaders to curl up in the fetal position where they remained until 1962.”

That’s an interesting way to refer to one of the most significant and revitalizing Councils in the history of our Church. Were it not for the Council of Trent, the Church might have fallen to the errors and heresies of Protestantism. We could have lost many more people, and denied the Truth. I swear, it’s almost as if he wishes the Catholic Church were Protestant! “Legalized and recognized Protestantism” if you will.

8. 5/16/2010- “Meanwhile the world was changing rapidly and radically all around the Roman crib. Changes that should have been taking place gradually over many centuries were stifled, stuffed and sent packing as a threat to orthodoxy and order.”

It’s called Modernism, and the Church was right to avoid it. Once again, it appears like our dear friend here wants the Catholic Church to embrace Protestantism. If you love Protestantism so much, why don’t you just pack up your suitcase and head off to Spiritus Christi?

9. 5/16/2010- “By the late nineteenth century monarchical Europe was fragmenting and making way for democracy and populist participation in government. The post-Trent church continued to hold fast to its regal prerogatives and crawled into the twentieth century steadfastly looking backward.”

Everything he has described to this point is Protestant. There are several Protestant denominations to suit whatever need you might have, Fr. Shaw. Find one and be happy instead of bitching about the Church! Here’s an analogy to help you understand: Say there is this one women you really like. Everything about her you love. Instead of marrying her, you marry another women, but you hate everything about her. Year after year you whine and complain about how the woman you decided to marry should be like this other woman whom you like.

Why try to change the Church to be like Protestantism when you would probably be happier as a Protestant? Why destroy the Church to suit your own selfish needs and desires?

10. 5/16/2010-  “When Pope John finally called the church to reality the forces that had been building for four centuries exploded like a pressure cooker in crisis. The fallout continues today as many – old and young – seek to understand what the Roman Catholic Church stands for and to whom it belongs. The problem of contemporary disorientation was not caused by the Second Vatican Council. It was caused by a church leadership which waited too long to accept God’s truth.”

The Roman Catholic Church stands for the truth and proclaiming the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. It belongs to all of us, but it is administered by the Pope, the Curia, and the bishops of the world. We do not run the Church. Our Church is not a democracy that changes doctrine and teachings based on public opinion.

The comment that the Church waited “too long to accept God’s truth” seems to suggest that the Church was in error for many years. What an idea to suggest, Father!

11. 6/6/2010- [On Republicans and Conservatives] “”Now we hear some of these same voices shrilly demand that government (the government they usually want to do less) DO SOMETHING and clean up the mess! Are they kidding???”
“The reason why people of conscience have been against offshore drilling…”
“Should the churches stick their heads in the oil-soaked sand and pretend that we have no dog in this fight? Are you kidding?”

Father regularly bashes conservatives in his bulletin articles. Do read them, you’ll quickly notice his anger and bitterness toward half of the United States population. That “people of conscience” comment was idiotic downright nasty toward those who support offshore drilling. Drilling for undersea oil is not an issue of morality, and thinking that we should drill for oil does not exclude you from being a person “of conscience. ” The Roman Catholic Church has no interest whatsoever in condemning off-shore drilling. Stop trying to get the Church to embrace liberalism.

12. 6/20/2010- “”Some believe that in a civil society we must all learn to get along in spite of our differences of opinion. While that may be true a majority of the time there is still a role for a “loose cannon” every now and then. This is especially true when institutional authority of any ilk insists that loyalty to the group is the highest value. Unless that “group” is the Blessed Trinity, that kind of loyalty would always be misplaced”

I assume that Father believes that loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church is misplaced? Of course he does, as he has just said that loyalty to the Blessed Trinity is the only thing that matters. Fr. Shaw has essentially rejected the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, instead placing his own misinformed interpretation of what the Trinity desires ahead of the teachings and doctrines of our Catholic faith, as well as the authority of the pope and bishops of the world.

13. 6/6/2010 – “Sometimes folks say that my columns are too “political”"

Now there’s the understatement of the century...

See previous post on this topic.

Tags: ,
Comments: 7 Comments »

Priests Gone Wild (with Dissent)

June 17th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

A reader has sent us an example of a certain Diocese of Rochester priest who has “gone wild” with dissent. We had been warned a couple of times before to check out what is being said by the Parochial Administrator of Holy Family in Auburn, Fr. Dennis Shaw. Not noticing anything out of the ordinary, we have since stopped checking. That is, of course, until we were contacted by a reader who sent us some very interesting statements made by Fr. Shaw in his most recent parish bulletin.

Here is the bulletin article, with emphasis and commentary:

“WHAT’S NEXT?

Dear Friends,
In two years Bishop Matthew Clark will have to submit his resignation to Rome as he reaches his 75th birthday. So what will happen next? Well, Pope Benedict will then have to decide if he will accept the resignation immediately or not. For example, when Bishop Moynihan of Syracuse turned 75 Pope Benedict did not name a successor for two additional years [Yea, I wouldn't count on Bishop Clark lasting longer than six months given the rap sheet the Vatican has on him]. But whenever he does choose it is most likely that the next bishop of Rochester will be much more traditional (i.e. conservative) than Matthew Clark [Traditional and conservative are two very different things. One relates to a person's love of Catholic traditions, the other is a secular political philosophy]. In almost all of his recent appointments Pope Benedict has chosen those who will be much more compliant with the imperial papacy of the 21st century ["imperial papacy"? Compared to what papacies exactly? The Church leadership is, like it or not, similar in form to a monarchy. It's NOT a democracy, progressives. Nor will it ever be. The papacy of Pope Paul VI was just as "imperial" as the present one. What if the pope agreed with your progressive agenda? Would you be calling this papacy "imperial" then? More like "visionary"]. For some time now Rome has held loyalty to the Holy See as the highest value one should seek in an Episcopal candidate [And with the shape the dissident bishops of the 1960s-80s left our Church, can you blame them? By the way, the Church is selecting solid, orthodox candidates; it's not based on "obedience" but love of Christ, love of His Church, and love of the teachings of our Lord]. Pope Benedict is taking the path of John Paul II to new heights (lows?) when it comes to affirming new church leadership [That's an interesting comment to make about the leader of the Church. Imagine a Rochester priest saying Bishop Clark has taken the DoR to new lows. How long do you think it would be before Buffalo Road makes a phone call to that priest? In Fr. Shaw's situation, he'll probably wake up with an extra floor added on to his rectory, and maybe he'll be named Vicar General!].

In many ways Bishop Clark has been an outstanding shepherd [Where is this crack that Fr. Shaw, Deacon Defendorf, and all the progressive leaders of this diocese are smoking? I could sure go for some of that stuff right now]. His own inner vision of the church and pastoral ministry places him in the top ten percent of the American hierarchy ["Inner vision" = dissent. "Top ten percent?" If Bishop Clark is truly in the top ten percent of the American hierarchy, where are the fruits of his episcopasy? We have few Catholics going to Mass, we'll have less than 50 priests in a decade, Catholic schools are disappearing, parishes are closing, and people continue to be driven away by lay administrators and homilists. Oh, but his fruits are ever so many! I tell you, these progressives would rather have one woman be a priest than have the pews in our churches be full.]. In the first half of his tenure he did as much for the role of women in the church as just about any bishop in the country. His outreach to gays and lesbians was dignified and compassionate [Ah yes, the rainbow Masses at the Cathedral scream "dignified!" What about the accounts of the Mass where people wear sashes and were turning SHC into a gay make-out hall?]. He affirmed lay leadership [to the destruction of the priesthood] and continued much of the great work begun by Bishop Joseph Hogan. The turning point in Bishop Clark’s life among us was the debacle at Corpus Christi Church in Rochester. Forced by Rome (especially then Cardinal Ratzinger) [A little animosity toward the Pope, Fr. Shaw?] to discipline Fr. Jim Callan and his staff/ congregation [If Callan weren't the raging dissident and heretic that he was, none of this would have been necessary. Why don't you spend a little time criticizing your good friend Jim Callan? Callan has lead hundreds of people to schism and potential damnation. The only one who did any harm to "his flock" was Callan himself (and Bishop Clark through his silent approval)], Bishop Clark has never really recovered. He faithfully carried out orders from Rome even though his heart was not in it [Any idiot could see that. And if Clark didn't remove Callan, he would be standing next to Callan right now at Spritus Christi's "table of more than plenty"]. His time since has been primarily trying to serve as a “buffer” between healthy ministries and papal oversight ["Healthy ministries"?!!! My Lord, does this man not see the rubble around him? Where are the Catholics, Dennis Shaw? The Church in Rochester is experiencing a slow, painful death. There is nothing healthy about this diocese].

Whatever Rome decides, we all have a decision to make as well. In the early church local communities – including the laity – elected their own bishops [More like drew lots. It was God who decided the bishop]. While we may not have the opportunity to cast a ballot there are lots of ways to take the measure of a nominated candidate. We should all be well prepared to do so [Anyone care to venture what sort of dissent Fr. Shaw is advocating? Does he want people to bitch and protest when the new bishop arrives? Is he pushing people to make his job as difficult as possible so that he is forced to resign because of health problems like Bishop Martino? Clearly, Fr. Shaw is advocating some form of dissent. Does he care to elaborate, or should Rome be sent this bulletin so that they can guess for themselves?].

Shalom,
Fr. Dennis “

Below is a screen shot of the bulletin page:

And here is the bulletin in .PDF form:

http://www.auburnholyfamily.org/June_13_Bulletin.pdf

Tags: , , ,
Comments: 23 Comments »