Deacon Orr Back On The Premises

A visitor send me the following:

I am sure you are aware the new pastor was installed at Our Lady of the Atonement last week. I wanted to make you aware of an important fact. I did not attend the Mass but saw photos posted on Facebook. It was very regal, appropriate of a bishop's installation (even though it wasn't) typical Atonement stuff.

Lot's of fanfare, The Knight's of Columbus, lot's of clergy, the Ordinary... Surprisingly, I saw an entourage of members of the Order of the Holy Sepulcher processing into the church. I was not sure what connection that had to the Anglican Patrimony, Ordinariate or anything else until I saw a photo of James Orr (disgraced, former Deacon of the Archdiocese of San Antonio) in the procession. Orr is a member of the Order. The order is primarily for wealthy people (like the humble Mr. Orr) to funnel money to the preservation of religious and historic sights in Jerusalem.

I was surprised that Bishop Lopes, would allow a person, who had been employed by the parish for over 20 years, who has a civil lawsuit pending against him for abuse of a minor, which occurred during his affiliation with the parish, [redacted] to be treated as an honored guest at the "coronation" of the new pastor?

Perhaps Bishop Lopes didn't know.
Perhaps Fr. Phillips is simply wielding his power so his special friend could be there.

Orr is to the right in the photo below:

Orr was accused by a parishioner of kissing the parishioner's pubescent son on the mouth; Fr Phillips told the parishioner to get over it, it was the "kiss of peace". Kissing on the mouth is now a violation of OCSP guidelines; whether it was a violation in the Archdiocese of San Antonio is an open question. At this point, we simply don't know how any proceedings against Orr in civil courts will be resolved, although it does appear that he will have no formal role at OLA. Those of us in the rank and file who have the importance of protecting children inculcated in the Virtus program do see a discrepancy here.

I agree it's a problem that he should be back on the premises, especially with, as reported here, Bp Lopes also on the premises. I'm with Michael Voris on this, it's important for the Church to send a message that it doesn't tacitly protect anything like this. The sooner Bp Lopes can wake up and realize he also needs to send the Calgary best-buds packing, the sooner it will relieve concerns that he's a bit of a wet in this area. Because I'm starting to have these concerns.