I had a very bad experience, with the St Mary of the Angels parish, during 2012 at the inception of the OCSP. As things have fallen out, most of those responsible for this were removed in subsequent years, including two vicars general, the ordinary, two chancellors/legal vicars, and other clergy. If things were going well, none would have been removed. I’ve got to speculate that this blog had an effect on causing the CDF eventually to take action. Certainly every indication I have is that it is read by influential parties and taken seriously. I am hoping that I can help the parish eventually move to the OCSP by making sure that all the errors that led to the bad experiences of 2012 are fully corrected.The Almighty does miraculous things to be sure, but Our Lord also had hard sayings about millstones, burning chaff, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. The angry priest, by the way, answered in part:However, one of the OCSP priests, whom I got to know quite well in 2011-12, committed US felonies, by all indications, including mail tampering and non-payment of taxes. This still hasn’t been addressed, and frankly, he’s continuing to have a bad influence on other OCSP priests. Every indication I hear from concerned Catholic laity is that lay people have an obligation to hold bishops accountable. The information I publish is generally well-sourced; speculation is identified as such. I do know the two California OCSP priests, and frankly, I believe it was an error to ordain them. Certainly other observers feel that in pointing out that we know them by their fruits, I’m performing a service.
My experience with diocesan priests in the confessional has been good, with only one exception. I would have a problem going to confession with an OCSP priest whom I am convinced has committed felonies and is presumably unrepentant. He may be able to absolve me, but what other evil advice can he give?
It seems to me that you have the option of not visiting the blog, or indeed of finding ways to counteract what I say on it via the Church. I’m open to other viewpoints, but at the same time, admonition of sinners is a work of mercy. But while you accuse me of not knowing OCSP circumstances, as best I can see, you’re on the faculty of a [redacted] and yourself are viewing things from a distance. I do know two OCSP priests and several others who went through the dossier process (and were dissatisfied and left embittered with it).
If you can clarify with specifics how I may be mistaken, I will appreciate it, but in effect, so far you’re saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, where I don’t see how you know better. Why not, for instance, explain how any other case I raise on my blog is mistaken? I’ll be happy to listen and make any correction that’s justified.
My apologies for my tone; I do ask your forgiveness. I was impressed with the tone of your first email which was quite genuine and measured. It sounds as though you have experienced great wrongs at the hands of men in the Church, and if so, it is God's good grace that has allowed you to enter full communion despite the bumbling and, at times, ill intent of men. By no means did I intend to say that you did not know what you were talking about in California.Ms Gyapong accuses me of getting facts wrong. As with the angry priest, I challenge her to point out where I'm mistaken. I will happily publish any corrections where needed. Calumny is propagation of false information. I work hard to avoid this, and will retract anything false and correct any inaccuracies, as I have done all along. Detraction is propagation of information that, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them. I think there has been objectively valid reason to draw attention to what the priest characterizes as the bumbling and ill intent I've discussed on this blog.
I wonder if rash judgment may be taking place on the other side here.
