CathInfo.com

Don't know if its true or not (correct me if I'm wrong), but the last word I've heard is that Wiest has been asked to leave by the OLHC board and he refuses to do so.  I understands he continues to stay at a place that is funded by OLHC faithful (Our money!). At this point, he is basically a shamed fraud/con man who is hunkered down in a place like a criminal on the run!

A triumphant victory for our dear Father Starbuck who was a victim and was abused by Wiest with the evil blessings of "the board" at OLHC.  A fraud has been perpetrated and Wiest and "the board" (particularly the individual who banged on the door terrorizing Father while he was in the confessional that Sunday morning should be penalized for their actions!).  There should be just consequences paid by Wiest, the Board and this despicable individual!  Wiest should not be given the chance of simply fleeing!  I believe the fraud he committed was is in some way a criminal act! Does anyone here have any further information or development about Wiest?

If you have legitimate proof he is not a Priest, then there's an easy enough solution to any unwanted "guest." Take multiple photographs of the individual, his car, belongings, etc., and docuмent everything for future reference. Always have video surveillance with correct dates and times, and CLEAR images of things.

Recruit your local Sheriff for help and ask the person simply to leave, and if he refuses, then give him 24 hours to basically get out, and get lost, or you will be calling additional authorities (which should have been done already). Exactly 24 hours and one minute later, dump his stuff on the curb if he is not gone on his own accord. 

Change the locks at first opportunity. Cut your losses if you just want to be rid of him, or get a lawyer if there are grounds to sue.

If he is not a Priest, then I would treat this man just like I would tell any wife that happened to catch her husband cheating on her--toss his crap to the curb and change the locks. Buh-bye! Divorce lawyer would be next...(Yes, if a trad Catholic man cheated on his wife, he can still pay the bills and support her and any children, but he lost his place of living with her). She would still be married, but she wouldn't have to put up with the louse any longer.

If there isn't any written lease for housing arrangements, then you basically have a squatter on your hands by the sounds of it. The longer he is allowed to stay, the worse it will be...

Go to the media if you want them to investigate things. NBC has a TV program called "Dateline." Look it up. It's great and has been going for years. They will possibly investigate things for you and put more heat on the person IF he is indeed a fraud or not.

Otherwise? Whoever has the keys, has the castle. Keep that in mind. He could just as easily change the locks on the actual homeowners! 

Btw, did anyone ever contact the SSPX Headquarters in KC like I suggested earlier? (Because if he isn't really a Priest, he was using the same altar that the SSPX Priest was--Father Alphonsus). Anyway...

                    Sorry - for this reposting. This site caused a glitch and posted (??)
                      this before I had a chance to proof it!??  I'll do better next time...             
                  St. Dominic's Catholic Chapel Bulletin
                      Father Cederik Starbuck
                   
                      New Hotline Number for Mass Schedule (714) 515-6735

Attendance at St. Dominic's  three Latin Masses said by Father Starbuck last Sunday, February 27th was wonderful.  There were approximately 45 souls at the 7:30 a.m. Mass, approximately 70 souls at the 9:30 a.m. Mass and approximately 40 souls at the 12:00 p.m. Mass.

Father Starbuck gave a wonderful sermon on charity.  Love of oneself and Love of one's neighbor.  How can we say that we love God when we refuse to do our best to love one's neighbor!  Very difficult in today's world.

RE: Baptismal Font

As I have previously noted here, Father Starbuck needs a used traditional baptismal font for St. Dominics and we want to surprise Farther when we find one.

As it turns out the baptismal font I found on Ebay did not work out!  I didn't see that there was embedded etchings/wording of some kind indicating that it had belonged to a Lutheran Church!  So, that would not be appropriate for St. Dominic's Chapel.

As Father is struggling to keep up with the growing demands of this new chapel all by himself, please generously help Father and St. Dominic's Chapel financially in our Sunday collection as well as our quest of purchasing and finding a beautiful traditional baptismal font for Father! I will post a photo of a possible baptismal font when its being considered for purchasing beforehand.

Checks can be made out to:

Father Cedrick Starbuck      (NOT St. Dominic's Chapel)
P.O.B. 427
Tustin, CA 92781
(714) 673-5552

God bless you all

How curious of you to post on both threads for a while, then solely on the other thread, but when I pointed out the following, you switched back to this thread:

"How can you say Fr. Starbuck had no fault in sister's death when, by your own mouth, you "know nothing of the specifics and conditions of sister's death"? 

"I am not suggesting that Fr. Starbuck had any fault in her death.  No one has.

"But the facts remain:
- a nun at OLHC went days and nights without food, water or housing, in full knowledge of Fr. Starbuck, Fr. Perez, and the laity.
- sister was not allowed to live in a three bedroom house with one other nun who was supported by OLHC.
- Fr. Starbuck told sister the police would be called to arrest her if she entered OLHC property.

"I do not deny that Fr. Starbuck is a good and holy priest, but the facts of his actions remain."

Hey!  So what's your point here epiphany?


Bottom line is Fr. Starbuck acted in accordance with Fr. Perez's directive and orders!    Obviously, you don't fully know what Fr. Perez and Fr. Starbuck's reasonings and conclusions were and why they came to the decisions they came to??  You are insidiously implying and hinting that that IN SOME WAY a wrong was committed by Fr. Starbuck.  You obviously don't know Fr. Starbuck for if you did you would give him the benefit of doubt because of his good will to others, his holy closeness to God, i.e., his character, warmth, gentleness, generosity and loving concern for others. This was a complicated problem dealing with a soul with mental issues!

I remember I did at times help sister but it always ended up with her creating some sort of disturbance.  It became impossible to deal with her mental illness any further. (May God rest her poor dear tortured soul - poor thing).

There was  numerous times over the years when she disturbingly imposed herself on many of the faithful.  You are "virtue signalling" here and making yourself appear as some sort of superior pontifical judge of high moral character pointing out what YOU perceive as what is right or wrong behavior according to your supercilious judgements of others.  What's your point?

In the end, we (I) are/am all poor sinners, pal.  Try practicing some humility here with the prayer "Oh God, be merciful to me ... a sinner."

You present Fr. Starbuck as a saint.  My point is to show that he isn't.  Neither was Fr. Perez.  And the chapel as a whole should hang their heads in shame for not helping a poor nun, whether you thought she was a nun or not.  She was poor and destitute soul who needed food, water, and shelter, and you all turned your backs on her.  Worse yet, Fr. Starbuck told her if she set foot on the property the police would be called.