Friday, August 17, 2018

IT SEEMS MY SEMINARY PROFESSOR, DR. RICHARD SIPE, WAS A PROPHET REJECTED FOR THE WHINNING MANNER HE SPOKE TRUTH TO POWER

Rocco Palma of Whispers in the loggia, says this in a tweet about Bishop McElroy’s future :

R Sipe’s passing has sealed one final fate – despite fierce, years-long campaign by some progressives, any illusion of +Bob McElroy as Abp of Washington has now effectively imploded

Richard Sipe
Richard Sipe, RIP, taught me at St. Mary’s in Baltimore from 1976 to 1980. He was an ex Collegeville Benedictine. He was eccentric to say the least, but an honest man. He became aware of McCarrick’s antics while at St. Mary’s Seminary in the late 70’s.

This National Catholic Reporter’s article today contains more bombshells about homosexual predation which Sipe sent to Bishop McElroy of San Diego in 2016 and McElroy ignored.

The links the NCR supply, contain some explosive info. How odd Sipe’s recent death and new notoriety occur now in the current unprecedented crisis! And act of the Holy Spirit?

Press the title for the NCR article:

San Diego bishop responds to survivor advocate Richard Sipe letter that alleged abuse by McCarrick

9 comments:

TJM said...

The gay porn capital in the US is San Diego, a perfect place for "Bishop" McElroy. I have read many of his statements on homosexuality and I think they are his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua."

Father McDonald, I agree with you about Sipe. He was eccentric, but honest and he didn't play politics with sexual misconduct -- he condemned both liberals and conservatives who were frauds.

Anonymous said...

Father, thank you for coming around a bit on this. I did note that Sipe was mentioned positively in the EWTN World Over segment you recommended that might have softened your attitude somewhat. On August 10, the day after Richard Sipe died, you panned my notice that a voice of truth had died. I responded to that pan by saying that Sipe had published one of the earliest exposees of clerical wrong-doing. When I read that book in 2002, it opened my eyes to truth and I was horrified but grateful. This was my response to you (one I was sure you’d probably ignore, and indeed did):

“Father, I’m sure your seminary exposure to Richard Sipe was less than stellar. I can empathize, as my Philosophy 101 and 102 professor was a former priest married to a former nun. Boring and pedantic didn’t even begin to describe... but fortunately I loved the subject matter.
That being said, Sipe’s book “Sex, Priests, and Power” (1995) was a necessary, important first step in exposing the roots of what we are continuing to suffer all these years later.
Blessings”

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

From what I know from first hand experience with Sipe, I am still uncomfortable with his manner of communicating (and how many at SNAP do as well, including Dominican Fr. Doyle). If Sipe expects priests to live as though they don't have bodies, I would call that Gnosticism and puritanism.

He does at times, present his information in a gossipy sort of way that reduced his credibility as well as his penchant to run-on and repeat over and over again a point made.

But yes, his reporting on McCarrick was spot-on and the institutional reaction typical and in need of major reformation.

Sipe is to be thanked, as it the press. Without the press, 2002's charter would not have happened.

TJM said...

The Press was motivated by hatred of the Catholic Church because the CHurch opposes the press' favorite sacrament, abortion. However, the truth did come out, so a stopped clock can be right twice a day. If the press really cared about children, they would be ranting and raving and running stories 24/7 of the sexual abuse that takes place in the public school system in far greater numbers than ever occured in the Catholic CHurch in the US. What could be the difference? Ah, because public school teachers are union (Dems) and support the sacrament of abortion.

Anonymous said...

TJM,

Spot on !!

Exactly !!

Robert Kumpel said...

I can tell you from experience that the Diocese of San Diego has long been a dumping ground for less-than-stellar bishops. In fact, we ALMOST got stuck with Ziemann from Santa Rosa when the Brom appointment from Minnesota was suddenly imposed under very questionable circumstances. I spent five years covering the diocese of San Diego for a now-defunct newspaper and, as I said before, as bad as things look to us on the outside, you really DON'T want to know how bad it REALLY is. For every bad story about a priest or bishop or parish, there are at least five or more stories that are even worse but never get published because of a lack of corroboration or technicalities that would invite lawsuits. Case in point: Many of us knew about the McCarrick stuff as far back as 2002, but the story never broke until someone willing to go on the record came forward. Be VERY suspicious of settlements made by dioceses, especially those with confidentiality agreements. There is almost always something very ugly hidden behind the curtain.

Anonymous said...

The Brom appointment was "imposed."

What is that supposed to mean? Bishops are appointed by the Holy Father upon the recommendation of the nuncio following consultation with the local archbishop and bishops.

Imposed?

Robert Kumpel said...

Let's put it this way: San Diego was supposed to get Bishop Ziemann from Santa Rosa as the coadjutor for the ailing and retiring Bishop Maher (who, ironically, was also the former bishop of Santa Rosa). Ziemann later spent the rest of his life secluded in the southwest after it had been disclosed that he had been involved in homosexual relationships including one that led to him ordaining a man who had insufficient seminary training as a priest.

Suddenly, it was announced that Robert Brom, bishop of Duluth, was to be the new coadjutor. It was later learned that Bishop From paid an unspecified settlement to a former seminarian with a confidentiality agreement. You can read a bit about it here:

http://www.awrsipe.com/brom/bishop_brom.htm

You are right. Bishops are appointed. It's just that in the postconciliar Church, it usually feels more like they are IMPOSED upon us.

Anonymous said...

I know the Church is not a democracy. I know people do not get to vote for their bishops. However, the McCarrick debacle and the growing knowledge of the Lavendar Mafia in the episcopacy as well as the culture of secrecy we are just beginning to discover brings home an important point: We as Catholics are particularly powerless when it comes to our leaders. On one hand, that can be good because we need leaders who will teach us unpopular truths in times when our minds are closed to those truths. It can also be a problem, however, when we have a subculture of men who watch out for each other, cover for each other and work behind the scenes to get their buddies promoted or get someone a position because it's "his turn". We also know that good and faithful young priests come out of our seminaries and are often placed in parishes where they upset the status quo by aging Fr. Liberalpants, who then punishes or silences the priest or even tries to get him drummed out of the priesthood--when priests like this are exactly what we need.

What is the laity to do?