Juvenalis et al.,
You sort of showed your hand there. Thorn was the one who spoke most, but you delivered your share lack of charity, before and now. To respond, I am not looking down on you, but looking straight at you and others and calling you out of the disgusting display of this thread, which has been lacking in charity, low on substance, and high in heresay. Whatever your experience with Monsignor is quite beside the fact since even if the facts are true, you deliver them in an uncharitable fashion, and in the context of this thread amounts to no less than detraction. You stated: "He's just a blowhard. He might bloviate me to death, but I withstood his oral Santa Ana winds during his 'homilies' enough before, that I'm not terribly worried." And he is "rage-prone," "a control freak," and "pedantic." Further you misunderstand detraction. Quite plainly: "Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer" (Catholic Encyclopedia). I don't know your soul, but what you said was plainly aimed on its face to detract from Monsignor's public reputation. You sum up quite nicely your lack of charity: "He's a hypocritical, proud, loudmouthed boor, and more than a little crass, prone to rage and a control freak." Your words cut out any benefit someone outside of your choir may have had. And let any man of goodwill see what was just stated, and what has been stated for nine pages, which I will recount in part for you below. And let anyone who has two brains cells worth of knowledge of the Catholic Faith compare Monsignor Perez and most of the group of posters of this thread. Please, come by Our Lady Help of Christians. Stay and see. See why we are growing, and why our faith is vibrant and making positive changes in the Church. Then compare that experience with the dismal malaise of this thread.
Now, the original post was referring to a request of prayer on FE, and the thread launched into a shameful display of lack of charity, misinformation, with calumny and detraction. Even if there was noteworthy information to be discussed about Monsignor, it was conducted in a way to detract from his public reputation. Since I know Monsignor, being a good friend of his for about nine years now, I felt it was warranted to point out that this was the case. Here are some specifics from the thread thus far with my responses. Let those with a Catholic sense judge. And please do pray for Monsignor, for if he is as bad as you make out, then surely he is in need of prayers.
1. Thorn responded to the original post by placing out the question as to why he received the honor of monsignor: "To make yourself look more important than you are?" Here we already see the tone of lack of charity and assuming the worst possible motives -- pride.
2. Immediately we see the question of valid ordination taken up, with various declarations based on armchair theology and lack of any authority to make such pronouncements. Even if there was a doubt, such a method of handling it is uncharitable.
As it stands, Monsignor was ordained by Cardinal Stickler in 1993 for service with the Institute of Christ the King.
I have no interest in debating sede points of contention. If you think Monsignor is not validly ordained, your problem is somewhere else. Debate those points on another thread, since by extension practically no one is ordained right now, and other extreme conclusions.
3. After this Thorn further adds by implication that Monsignor is sort of "liberal" about faith and morals, since he apparently had a link to Fish Eaters in the bulletin, morally supports a professional local surfer in our congregation (a convert no less), further detracting from his good public reputation.
4. Thorn further adds that he is "... a young, brash, worldly man ...." This is strange because he is 52 years old and has been a priest for 19 years. Hardly young. As for brash, that would need to be clarified. He certainly can be accused of being brash at times, but that is certainly not a characteristic of his personality. He has a strong personality, but he is careful too. And worldly doesn't fit either. He likes cigars and wine, and has a educated palette, can speak numerous languages, and has experience living in various places in Europe. Furthermore like many with the Institute of Christ the King, he likes the finery of the vestments and such like. If being a well-rounded, educated man is worldly, then Thorn has redefined that word in the context of the Faith. Monsignor has his priorities straight and always has the Faith as number one.
5. Thorn then comments on him becoming a bishop. Every once and in while we joke about him becoming Pope, mostly because he'd dismantle about everything there is modernist, and it is a little funny. But realistically he seems quite committed to his flocks on the local level. Only recently did he start to participate more in conferences and such like. He is very good on the local level. So I don't think he is really seeking that level.
6. Then Thorn post concerning banns for marriage, stating that Monsignor picks and chooses which banns are read based on the amount of money they have, or power they have. This claims is absurd, because any parishioner there knows that all banns are read for every wedding no matter their income level or occupation, etc. This false statement was made to further add dissuade people for having a favorable opinion of Monsignor.
7. Thorn adds that Monsignor doesn't give out much of his background. He may not announce it from the pulpit, probably just to thwart the busybodies who demand one's life history before they attend the church, but any friend can know his background in seconds. He's saved you a lot of time by giving you a good run down of his background here:
http://www.truerestorationpress.com/videos/. Or a preview here:
http://truerestoration.blogspot.com/2011/05/interview-with-father-patrick-perez.html.
8. Then Thorn and s2srea question Monsignor's rationale for asking Bishop Fama to leave Our Lady Help of Christians. The simple fact is that Fr Fama got ordained a bishop without any knowledge of Monsignor Perez, even though Bishop Fama at that time was serving at Monsignor's church under his pastorship. No matter the rationale of Bishop Fama, Monsignor does not agree with that action, nor with his theological opinions concerning validity of priests and bishops. He was within rights to do this since it is his church, and his understanding of the Catholic Faith. The whole thing was surprise to us since Bishop Fama used to preach about angels. He never said a thing about validity of consecrations, etc. Ever since this happened in like 2003 or something, Monsignor has never said anything about him from the pulpit.
9. Thorn then states that "... he needs to go to anger management classes. He's crucified people from the pulpit who have dared speak up, he's threatened and expelled others." Of course, this is written to make him look like a Hitler or a Stalin. This is extremely strange a characterization since he is one of the most charitable priests I have met. He does give sermons that challenge people in terms of rising to the occasion, and on occasion he'll point out that he is getting tired of preaching morality which people duly ignore (like modesty), but anger, threatening, and expelling are not the quality of his sermons. He may have expelled a few people here and there, but maybe they deserved it. I have gone against him on a few points, and mostly he'll just ignore you. Usually the issue is solved silently. I did see him once tell someone that they needed to know their place, but mostly because people treat priests like dirt today. There is a tactful way to question a priest and try to change policy. Usually people aren't very tactful, and a strong personality like Monsignor will shut it down pretty quickly. Think: he has a congregation of hundreds of families, in multiple locations. Sometimes you're going to get a gruff priest. Grow up and live with it. Anyone in a close relationship with another person knows that people vary in mood. Some priests even do this to help people grow spiritually (seriously). Grow up, and deal with it. As for acceptance, Monsignor has always been open to input and has implemented changes based on feedback from the flock. Such a change was adding a cry room, and having another priest not tell parishioners who are outside the church building with children (because of behavior) that they don't fulfill their Sunday obligation.
10. I don't need to go into the silly straw subdeacon thing. Just another item to try to detract, and shows some posters complete ignorance of what they are talking about. What he did was ligit, and necessary to celebrate solemn high Mass on Christmas. (One of our priests is on an extended sick leave.) The man who served as subdeacon is our master of ceremonies, a regular face around here, and probably going to be a priest. But we see here another instance of lack of charity, because they assumed he was just willy-nilly doing things, instead of implementing traditional options of the Roman Rite which he learned from (expert) Fr Franck Quoëx at ICK.
11. Talavera posted an email which Monsignor sent to someone about "black beams". Monsignor took the photo, and thought it was of interest to the person he sent it to. He did not give that person permission to public the email, and Monsignor in general is not a conspiracy stuff, although, as the email states, we all know the claims and have our independent opinions on them. He never preaches on any of that stuff. Talavera probably didn't ask Monsignor about the photo, though, but instead via internet cathedra declares him a heretic, and that he leads us in "those directions." All by the fallacy of guilt of association. (juvenalis added his opinions to to this effect.)
12. Thorn further invective by stating that Monsignor gives "puerile sermons" which lack substance ("splattered with one-liners that he giggles at"). He cites reviews he gave on products, as though a priest cannot have an opinion of products.
13. In addition, Thorn with Juvenalis imply that Monsignor is lazy, or wastes his time, therefore by further implication neglecting some priestly duty. Monsignor is a hard working priest. OLHC has congregations in Garden Grove, Los Angeles, and Ventura. They also serve a group in Yucca Valley, and often come to the aid of parishioners who are not served by the diocesan clergy (e.g., a sick call, etc.) To say he is lazy is a bit much to say the least. A lazy priest would have a stunted congregation. Not so here. We grow every day in parishioners. Even the building we acquired has over the last ten years become a nice beautiful space. SO if you think he is lazy, try doing to same stuff, and then we'll talk.
14. Thorn adds: "I've been warned by someone I met only once a couple of years ago after I left his church to be careful, that I'm dealing with a hornet's nest. This person was not smiling & wouldn't explain." This is meant to imply that Monsignor has thugs who intimidate people. This uncharitable statement is meant to add more doubt, but notice how little is actually stated by him. (Juvenalis agreed at how absurd this sounds.)
Need I go on? I won't, because it is all too much. God bless, my friends.
Topic: "Monsignor" Patrick J Perez (Read 44414 times)