After hearing nothing for quite a spell, we're suddenly flooded with e-mails about Our Lady of the Sun chapel way out West in El Mirage, Arizona. Rumors are flying that the "priest" currently assigned there may be going to Virginia. And we have fresh accounts confirming much earlier stories about the lay leadership's active search for a replacement.
That's really no surprise. As we reported back in 2011 (click here), Big Don had bragged in a pesthouse newsletter, “we are very hopeful and confident that our relationship to [Our Lady of the Sun Chapel, Arizona] will become permanent” (a reference to the apparently once-discussed possibility of the lay board's turning over everything -- lock, stock, and barrel -- if the arrangement worked out). The board must have done its due diligence, for soon thereafter we learned it had decidedly rejected a crudely insistent demand for out-and-out control.
After the harsh rebuff, the rector continued to play the crass hireling, probably partly for the fees and partly because he had nowhere else to house the "sisters" he'd sent out there. He couldn't have liked the situation in the least. You just know it had to stick in his craw that, according to a first-hand account we received, he was bested by a layman, a veteran lawyer, who couldn't be cowed with all that empty clerical swagger and bluster. It must have galled the rector exceedingly to think of all that money and merchantable real estate under the tightfisted stewardship of conscientious LAY PEOPLE -- a condition he naturally abhors.
After four and a half years, IOHO, it looks as though the justly cautious lay board may never hand over the assets to Big Don. Using our mind's eye, we can envision how, as he nursed the viper of resentment in his bosom through each passing year of disappointed acquisitiveness, his resolve to strike back -- to retaliate for frustrating his plans -- must have hardened. First his lumbering, big $30-K plan* never got off the ground that year. Then his high-flying effort to take over the Arizona chapel crashed and burned, obliging him to remain a lowly hired hand of a lay board. Unyielding lay opposition forced him to violate what seems to be his most sacred principle, viz. laymen have no right to control money and assets attached to their own chapel. Every time he figuratively outstretched his grasping paws for his servant's wages, he must've bristled with bitter, biting self-loathing. His cult followers' repeated inquiries about the status of the "permanent relationship" probably didn't make it any easier.
You don't have to be a a fortune-teller to divine it all. You just have to understand the surly nature of all these mammonite, clerical crud balls.
Now all this background along with the new whispers inspired us to hazard a not-so-wild guess at what he might have in mind for the recalcitrants at Our Lady of the Sun, who refuse to see the wisdom in forking over everything they possess to Big Don for his big-spending dreams. So, then, what will he do? It's a no brainer: He'll just pick up his marbles and go home, leaving the people hell-bound, without the sacraments.** You can almost hear him croak, "That'll show 'em, it will, it will! Let 'em buuuuuurn for eternity!"
But there's one problem with all our airy speculation: Although the rector can assign elsewhere the current "priest," who's his creature, what is he to do with the "sisters" who staff the "school" out there? We looked at aerial views of pesthouse property and couldn't see a building large enough to billet both the El Mirage muster and the Brooksville bevy at the same time. The current structure where the high-living "sisters" lounge about seems far too small in our eyes. If he wanted to bring the exiled "nuns" back just to spite the Arizonans, Big Don would have to build some kind of new convent. But that takes land and new construction, doesn't it?
Our question sent us online to look at any activity with Hernando County property near the pesthouse. Lo and behold! we found a possible candidate. It's a 16.5-acre parcel in the name of known cult benefactors.*** The purchase date was December 31, 2012 (about a year and a half after the humiliating rejection in Arizona). Most significantly, the records showed that just one day later, January 1, 2013, the property was transferred to Queen of All Saints Chapel -- the cult's umbrella organization -- for $0.00!
Could this be the location for a new convent, grand enough to lodge all the "sisters" in lavish style and luxurious comfort? It just needs a building -- which may explain another set of rumors that came out of the Southeast concerning a big donation campaign on the Q.T. So the moment the cult masters announce the groundbreaking, it won't be a bad guess to predict an inevitable end to the rector's disenchanting temporary "relationship" with Our Lady of the Sun. Uppity lay people who don't know their place at the bottom of the cult food chain need to be taught object lessons!
The peevish prelataster may be planning to take these folks by surprise. We can imagine him gloating in his best Snidely Whiplash impression,
"Boy, will they be sorry now! OOWAHhahahaha!"
The faithful of Our Lady of the Sun will be better off if it indeed turns out that we've correctly read the tea leaves. Had they turned over their lovely chapel with its considerable assets, the place would've been transformed into a full-fledged cult center, where snooping, ill-humored clerics and pampered religious transgressively intrude into the private lives of the faithful, demanding the laity serve them, cook and clean for them, and surrender their will to the cult master's whims; where vicious, backbiting fanatics spy on their neighbors on behalf of meddling clergy; where the in-crowd rich enjoy special treatment, exempt from the harsh strictures binding the rest; where women are chattel; and where childhood is smothered under the oppressive weight of bizarre, arbitrary restrictions more akin to ISIS than to authentic Roman Catholicism.
Then, after everyone had left, and the cupboard was bare, all that would've been left would be the nightmarish memories of the devastation the "permanent relationship" had visited upon a too trusting Catholic community -- a community unable to see how their desire to keep their money and property in their name should render them ineligible for pastoral care. They must've forgotten the iron motto of Tradistan: proventus cleri lex suprema esto.
Why not head 'em off at the pass, all you good folks at Our Lady of the Sun? Say adiós and good riddance before you're bushwhacked. You'll be taking the first step toward returning to the Catholic faith you once knew but may have forgotten. As John Wayne once said, "Think about it, Pilgrim...Remember?"
* See our posts of April 23, May 22, and July 31, 2011, for more details. The promise of the plan is found here on page 7 of the pesthouse bulletin.
** Considering who ordained the current incumbent, they may not have had valid sacraments anyway, so they've got everything to gain if the cult master leaves 'em high and dry.
*** We also found a tangled web of LLC's and quit-claim deeds so complex that you'd need a battallion of forensic accountants to figure out what's really going on.
I was wondering if you old timers knew what has to be done in the following situation according to Catholic teaching:
ReplyDeleteAround 2003 an 18-19 year old man started to mess around with his first cousin, who was 12 years old at the time. This has gone on all this time until finally around 2-3 years ago the girl got pregnant. She had the child and a while later she moved in with the child to the house where the man lives. This house is in a farm where around 10 family members who own the farm live. They don't own the house; this is a house where past workers of the farm have lived. The man himself is the son of past workers. The girl lived on the other side of the road in the neighborhood.
On top of that the uncle of the man, a sodomite, lives in the house as well. This sodomite has brought many men to the farm although they have never kissed or hugged or things of that nature in public, but you can tell they're sodomites and everyone knows it but do nothing.
So now they are living together in this house, all 4 of them, and the owners of the farm have encouraged this abomination and have done nothing about it. They're all Novus Ordos, the cousins, the sodomite and the farm owners.
So what has to be done in this situation according to Catholic teaching? Kick out the sodomite immediately? Tell the man that if he wishes to keep living in the house, the girl and the child have to leave? Kick out all 3 of them?
Holy Toledo! This scenario looks like a Novus Ordo version of "Deliverance."
ReplyDeleteAs old-timers, we can only say that any really Catholic owners in our time would not have permitted this situation in the first place, let alone foster it by cohabiting with these people. They wouldn't have even gone to a priest for advice. They would have known ahead of time what the priest would have said. In fact, they would've kept this human incestuous, unnatural garbage far from their front door. And never would they have knowingly allowed their property to be an occasion of sin or lived under the same roof with such degenerates.
Of course, we can imagine some good Catholics who, moved by charity, would have been concerned for the child's well being. However, owing to the collateral consanguinity of the parents, a good Catholic would have referred the couple to a priest for counseling, assuming, that is, that the couple wanted to amend their lives. In addition, the Catholic may have contacted a Church-run social service agency for their intervention.
We're not counselors, so all we can do is answer on the basis of what we had been taught: it is sinful to promote sin or provide the occasion of sin. From your description, it seems clear that the cousins are probably not living "as brother and sister," and that the uncle is probably engaging in acts against nature. Moreover, it would seem that the three are not going to alter their lifestyles, so it wouldn't be realistic to expect that they would keep any promise to live chastely in return for a roof over their heads. Therefore, we would send them all packing (after we had contacted civil authorities about the child's welfare).
Whoa, the farm owners don't live under the same roof with these people! That would be insane! Haha.
DeleteThere are 5 family houses in the farm, and the one where the incestuous couple and the sodomite live is still in the vicinity of the other houses but at least 15-20 meters apart from any of the houses. Still, it's right there in front of them!
You bet they're not living as brother and sister. They're using contraception and living as if they were a married couple. Im telling you, this is a scandalous abomination.
And that's not all. One of the women there is the godmother of the father of the child. That's right. And this woman, who happens to be a Novus Ordo catechist, has asked the GIRL a couple of times to give catechism to children when the woman can't.
I know that in truly Catholic times, this just would've never happened in the first place, but now that it has, I wanted to know what needed to be done in case one wanted to fix the situation.
So there is the possibility that incestuous people can live together as brother and sister? I thought this would never be allowed given that it's incest.
Sounds like the Novus Ordo remake of "Deliverance"!
ReplyDeleteWe only made the remark from the point of view of a charitable lay Catholic who might have wanted to impose conditions in order to let the couple have shelter.
In the old days, if the couple had wanted to marry to cease living in sin and legitimized their child, they would have consulted a priest, who in turn would have contacted the chancery, where specialized staff would have computed the degree of consanguinity. (They usually had charts to make the job easier.) You should be aware that even in the good old days, sometimes first cousins and uncles/nieces and aunts/nephews married. The old canon law books are filled with illustrations in order to determine the multiple consanguinity. Under canon law, in the collateral line, there is a diriment impediment up to the 3rd degree inclusive. For instance, a daughter of first cousins would be related in multiple consanguinity in the 2nd and 3rd degrees of the collateral line to her cousin.
It's all very complex, and the officials of the diocese would have interview the pair in depth and determine common ancestors before making a any decision.
Personally, we old-timers find it all rather distasteful. There're a lot of old books and journal articles on the issue, if you're interested. It gives us the willies just to look at the general summary.
No no, I wasn't asking you about the consanguinity issue principally, but about the other stuff. I was told the girl actually went to ask a Novus Ordo bishop if they could get married, and even he said they couldn't! The man's mother is the sister of the girl's mother. Even the state forbis these marriages. Everyone thinks it's a degeneration but they're shameless. Everyone says they got lucky the child wasn't born with any defects like Down syndrome because they say the chance is very high and I suspect this is the reason they haven't had another one.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like the girl and the child have nowhere to go and would be out in the street either. They can just go back to her moms house where they were before.
We guess the poor kid just lucked out on the genetic roll of the dice.
ReplyDeleteUnder these circumstances, we can't see how a Catholic, even a Novus Ordite, could allow those two to cohabit on their property. Maybe the owners are just as degenerate as the two cousins. We suppose that's to be expected, considering all these lowlifes belong to the New Religion.
Maybe they should appeal to old "Who am I to judge?" Francis. He probably would understand their sicko "love" and invite them to Rome for an all-expenses paid private audience and then give them a dispensation.
We've got to close now. We feel the need for a long, hot shower.
"We've got to close now. We feel the need for a long, hot shower."
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is nasty stuff.
You got that right. As skin crawling as the degenerate cultlings who support the scumbag cult masters.
ReplyDeleteDo you all hold the view that every sedevacantist chapel is a horrible hellhole with "scuzzbag" clergy? Just curious if you do fine none of my business.I attend a sede chapel & it's the best mass/church I have ever been to in 35 years.We are not involved in any Florida/Ohio chapels.
ReplyDeleteNo, we absolutely do NOT believe every sede chapel is a sleaze hole. We know of many that are under the care of well-formed, well-adjusted priests who care for their flocks and are fine stewards of their chapels' funds. They are as outraged as we are at the few but infamous sede cults and their over-reaching "bishops."
ReplyDelete