Letter to Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb on Complaints of Clergy Against Father David Trosch

Priests who do not understand brotherly correction
yet are made pastors of souls.

"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother." [Mt. 18:15]

March 5, 2000

The following letter to Archbishop Oscar H. Lipscomb was made in response to written allegations made against myself that he had forwarded to me. The presentations were made by the following four men (click on links to see their letters):

Msgr. James Oberkirch

Unitarian Universalists

Msgr. John Amos

Fr. William Gorman

Fr. John Aherne

Archbishop Lipscomb transmittal letter dated November 2, 1989

Soon after receiving this correspondence Archbishop Lipscomb called Msgr. Oberkirch and myself into his office. After a short discussion the archbishop told Msgr. Oberkirch to restore me to full activity in the Cathedral parish. There were no recriminations against myself. Approximately six months latter, after serving the Cathedral parish for about four and a half years, I was assigned as administrator of St. John's parish in Magnolia Springs, Alabama. (An administrator has the obligations but not the rights of a pastor.)

This document is now being placed on the Internet to demonstrate an established pattern of problems within the Church. It is not my belief that these four priests, representative of the archdiocese of Mobile, are any different than commonly found in other dioceses throughout the world. They profess belief in God but choose to follow the teachings of contemporary theologians and their own whims rather than the approved teachings of the Church.

REVEREND DAVID C. TROSCH
Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception
400 Government Street
Mobile, Alabama 36602
~~(205) 433-7337 or 344-6279~~

November 13, 1989

Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb
The Catholic Center
400 Government Street
Mobile, AL 36602

Dear Archbishop:

I am glad that the process which I requested some weeks ago, initially with Fr. Warren Wall, then with Fr. Wall and Msgr. James Oberkirch is finally taking form. This process then continued with my request to you to intervene in resolving these and foundational unresolved problems which began years ago. It is unfortunate that none of my superiors saw fit to resolve or even communicate the existence of these problems to me in a full, direct and open manner. I am saddened that such conditions exist in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Please note that I have no objection to anything that has been, or will be said or written in regard to these matters being made known to either clergy or laity. If I am or have been in error it was and is the particular duty of my lawful superiors to discuss, instruct, correct and admonish me in faith as has always been the intention of almighty God and His true Church.
As stated in your letter, it is understood that this is not even an "administrative process" and I am looking forward to having you mediate this "whole difficulty", as you phrase it, to an acceptable solution. I believe it to be entirely unfortunate that actions which have already taken place did so without my even being informed that they were going to take place. Now that these "problems" have been made known, and to some degree public, I am able to respond to them hoping for further and proper enlightenment by my superiors as we act in mutual good faith. I will be pleased if Fr. John Aherne, and other past pastors who may have input into this interchange, will put forth their comments so that with the aid of the Holy Spirit our reflections on them may be fruitful to our spiritual growth.
It has always been my intention to proceed in any activity with mutual respect and priestly cooperation. I pray that others have this same understanding.
In response to MEMORANDUM from Fr. James W. Oberkirch, Rector of the Cathedral: Page 1.1 Fathers Sullivan, Amos and Oberkirch summarily removed my name from the roster for hearing confessions without any explanations as to why. If there are legitimate accusers, I ask that I be confronted with them. It has always been a taught and an understood practice of the Church that every penitent has a right to choose his or her own confessor. The decline in the number of penitents over the past twenty or so years is a serious Church wide problem. Most of even the largest of churches no longer have the need of even one priest more than intermittently hearing confessions, and then only for a short period of time. In years gone by there would have been two or more priests steadily hearing confessions for two to four times the amount of time. I assure you that I am not responsible for the decline internationally of the number of Catholics making use of the Sacrament of Penance. As such decline is an obvious and recognized fact, I ask why the decline? Is it because priests are making light of the need for this sacrament? Is it because of the leniency of the penances given that people no longer see confession to have meaningful value? Are some priests practicing human psychology and counseling in preference to proper spiritual counseling? What degree of truth is in the statement that priests are discouraging people from going to confession? Is it also true that priests discourage hidden (behind the screen) confessions in opposition to Canon 964.2. These and other questions I believe should have been dealt with before one can be fruitfully admonished regarding his confessional methods. It is my understanding that penitents are free to choose their confessors (Canon 991). Further, for some unknown reason, the Cathedral does not have the practice of placing name plates on the confessional doors, as is done in most major parishes, so that penitents may know who the confessor is and have the freedom to find another confessor. It is also disturbing that there no longer is a crucifix in the reconciliation room. The presence of the crucifix helps to call to mind the gravity of sin and how seriously God regards it.
I have been accused, by unknown persons, of harsh counseling. Since I do much successful one on one and multiple face to face counseling and do not have such adversity even from those who are obstinate in their desire to commit the sin of abortion, I find it hard to accept that these are legitimate complaints. Rather, I believe that these complainers are people who are in some stage of denial and may well not be truly repentant. For further information in this regard I recommend that priests attend at least several "Alcoholics Anonymous" and several "Al-Anon" and/or similar meetings paying particular attention to the various stages of denial which alcoholics and others go through and relate this knowledge to non-substance dependant persons who no less commonly act from denial. Also I suggest that strict attention be paid to discussions in these meetings regarding enablers. Enablers are people who unintentionally or with misplaced compassion assist others to continue in their errors. While enablers often act unwittingly, they nevertheless have a responsibility in a wrong-doers continuance in their aberrant activities. (In anticipation of and in order to continue committing grievous sin it is common for one to build around oneself a personal defence-mechanism which permits them to circumvent their consciences and enable themselves to commit the offensive act with seeming impunity. Enablers help them in this process. Later when sinners are confronted with possible penetration of these barriers, which they have built around themselves, they will commonly lash out at the one who is getting too close to their inner secrets which they have at least partially succeeded in shielding even from themselves. Please refer to speech attached given at anti-abortion rally of October 28, 1989 which took place in the parking lot of Dauphin Way Baptist Church. Note the traumatic reaction to even the presence of someone who makes her (them) reflect on past actions. Note further that the presence of such persons only highlighted the evil. Proper peace with God has still not been established and the consequences of such sin continued even without the confrontal presence of adverse persons. However, now that confrontation with the reality of the sin committed has been established, with Robin, a true and proper healing process has begun).
In regard to what is termed the giving of excessive penances I refer you to Canon 981 "The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed, taking into account, however, the condition of the penitent. The penitent is bound personally to fulfill these penances." To my knowledge this is the binding teaching of the Church. I know of no equivalent or higher teaching of the Church which says anything different, nor do I know of any teaching that sets any limits on penances to be imposed. If I am in error then I should be instructed accordingly and given the teaching which governs. (If Jesus, who was not guilty of any sin, should have been required by his Father to suffer as he did, then I fail to see where a few prayers, which perhaps add up to less than one-fifth or even one-tenth of the total number of serious sins confessed, even begins to approach being a harsh penance. On the contrary when little or no meaningful penance is given it is a clear sign to the penitent that confession is trivial. In the penitents mind it comes to be understood that confession is of little importance or consequence).
Fr. Oberkirch states that he has continued pre-existing policy. One is not justified in relying on and continuing in the error or ignorance commenced or brought forward by others.
As I was never aware of any ruling, but only of an injustice being perpetrated, I did not and do not feel that it was incumbent upon myself, as victim, to approach anyone in regard to such injustice. It is the responsibility of a just pastor of souls to inquire into and resolve any problems which may exist in his jurisdiction, particularly if they are so blatant as claimed.
In regard to talking to Fr. Oberkirch about my duties as an associate, I was not aware that there was anything to talk about. It was and still is my understanding that my chaplain assignments where independent of the Cathedral parish. Further that my only parish assignments were to assist in the saying of parish Masses and the hearing of confessions, both of which by arbitrary action of a superior, who I believe has abused his authority, have been taken away. Justice and truth, by hierarchial design are intended by the just God to work their way down from top to bottom. God is a just God. Each of those who have been placed in a position of authority under him are expected to act in the same way.
I ask Fr. Oberkirch to take a course in human psychology which deals with guilt reactions and denial, and then carefully examine each complaint against myself on an individual basis. If he is not intimidated by the person complaining or more concerned about the loss of a body to the parish than he is in helping the person prepare his or her soul for the heavenly kingdom, he will come to understand that he and his predecessors have lost many golden opportunities to help these people to overcome a stage of personal denial and properly begin or renew their journeys to heaven. In a state of denial people do what they deem necessary to satisfy their rationalizations. They will normally continue to do so until an authority figure, whom they respect, calls them to task. They must then believe that the authority figure is correct, in order to change their direction of thinking, and with the help of God, their errant behavior.
In regard to "one theme" homilies, I again refer you to the speech of Robin Perry where she stated that because of the extreme guilt she had she was angered and attempted to deny (in her mind) the right of a person to even be in the same building with her who was known to oppose what she wanted to be kept hidden. This presence was a very frightening and intimidating experience. Note that approximately one-third of the people in the United States are guilty of direct involvement of the moral crime of abortion. The number of Catholics involved is said to be nearly as high. This number includes a great many who have never confessed this sin and yet are regularly receiving Holy Communion. Because of the amount of post-abortion counseling which I do, I know this to be a fact. It is time for pastors and all priests to become aware of what is taking place within their parishes and within society, and to quit being enablers to those continuing in sin. Please, Bishop, teach your priests the consequences of what it is that they are enabling. Help them to understand the real need for change. One worthwhile homily on the evils of abortion is sufficient to cause flashbacks to it each time the homilist is again seen. The sight of the homilist is frequently sufficient to cause a replay of the homily in the mind of one who lives in buried guilt. The repressed guilt is so great that further in depth homilies with the same congregation are very seldom needed. This is not true only with those suffering from the aftermath of abortion, but is true for any hidden sin committed which has been denied.
Complaint two is an apparent fabrication. My noonday Masses averaged about twenty-eight minutes and were very rarely over thirty-two minutes. In opposition to the complaint stated I have been regularly told that my Masses were consistently shorter than Fr. Gorman's who most commonly celebrated this Mass. I am not aware that there has ever been a time limit set on the saying of this or any other Mass. As far as the giving of homilies at Masses is concerned, I refer you to Canon 767.3 "It is strongly recommended that, if a sufficient number of people are present, there be a homily at weekday Masses also, especially during Advent and Lent, or on a feast day or an occasion of grief." It is therefore my understanding from this canon that it is inappropriate for anyone of any rank to request, suggest or order that a homily not be given at any Mass regardless of reason. The command of Christ was to go out and preach. Any command contrary to this command would therefore seem to be in error. If there were people who quit going to my Masses it was not on account of a homily being given or the length of the Mass, but because of reaction to the content of the homilies. These few people who may have quit going to my Masses have been more than made up for, as I have noticed a slow but continuing growth in attendance a my Masses particularly if I was left saying the same Mass for any reasonable length of time.
In regard to complaint three concerning confessional matters: Fr. Oberkirch stated that he still allowed me to hear confessions before my own Masses. He should note Canon 974.1 "Neither the local Ordinary nor the competent superior may, except for grave reason, revoke the grant of a faculty habitually to hear confessions." As no complaints of substance have been presented against me, I believe the Cathedral rectors have been in error in attempting to restrict my hearing of confessions.
In a very real sense I feel complimented that Fr. Oberkirch makes it a point to note that not a week would go by without some complaint being made against myself regarding one of the three points noted. Christ himself made it abundantly clear that he came not for peace, but for division (MT 10:34-37). Because of believing in the words Jesus spoke, and the words of his vicars which were given by Jesus' authority, one is set against another who does not believe. The believer against the non-believer. The pretender against the true believer. In verse twenty-one of the same chapter, Christ could also have added, priest against person or priest against priest. We are told in MT 24:11 to be on guard against false prophets who will rise in great numbers to mislead many. How many who are constantly seeking humanistic peace, rather than peace which comes from doing God's will, are among these numbers?
Regarding comments concerning the woman who stated she confessed one lie. It would seem appropriate for any priest to make inquiry into the type of lie, i.e. rather it was slander, bearing false witness, lying in regard to casual gossip, mental reservation, etc. As I have never berated or upbraided anyone in confession as Fr. Oberkirch claims this woman has claimed, I can only surmise that she was either overly sensitive, was not used to reasonable questions being asked in regard to confessional matters which are necessary to make sound priestly judgments, or, was being defensive about some aspect of her life that she was not yet able to deal with. (It seems that Fr. Oberkirch himself is being excessively sensitive and defensive. He should be more sensitive to persons true needs rather than spending his time agreeing with these people who need help and are not being given it by himself).
I see a real need to have seminary courses taught regarding human denial and defense mechanisms, and what it means to be an enabler, etc. False compassion is destructive to souls. In the early part of October of this year I held an infant in my arms for a long period of time that had tested HIV positive. This child was very lethargic and will probably die within two or three years. For this child and for its lost descendants I have great compassion. I also have compassion for the spiritual health of those who sincerely desire to change the direction of their lives. I have visited with inmates in county jail who have tested HIV (AIDS) positive. I am willing to work with them so long as they have interest in attempting to turn their lives around. To the extent that they have exercised free will in getting into their current conditions, I hold no false compassion for them. However I do pray that they truly seek God so that their souls may one day enter heaven. Everyone will one day die. The physical death of the body is not important. The life or the death of the soul is extremely important.
Reference Page 2.1 All statements made at the end of Mass regarding Mr. Michael Dow were strictly uncontested facts concerning his religious beliefs which are contrary to good Christian beliefs, i.e. that he has been a major contributor to the Mobile branch of the Unitarian Universalist Association. This is an organization which favors abortion on demand, approves same-sex marriages and prohibits its local groups from refusing to accept gay and lesbian ministers. Further it allows that any or no belief in God is equally acceptable. In regard to this I refer you to three different Canons: Can. 528.1 "The parish priest has the obligation of ensuring that the word of God is proclaimed in its entirety." Can. 767.1 "...the mysteries of faith and the rules of christian living are to be expounded..." Can. 768.2 "They (priests) are also to explain to the faithful the teaching of the magisterium of the Church concerning the... people's social obligations and the ordering of temporal affairs according to the plan established by God." MK 6:14-29 John the Baptist made statements to the people against a ruler, a politician in office. How much more so should currently true statements be made against one who is clearly in opposition to the teachings of Christ. It seems clearly in order to attempt to prevent one, who is in opposition to Christ, from obtaining governing authority. A position where he would be able to further enable or spread his erroneous beliefs and/or practices. Compassion for the souls of our brothers and sisters in Christ demands that we speak out. In MATTHEW 11:7 Jesus said, "`What did you go out... to see---a reed swaying in the wind?'" Is it not the intention of God that his priests take a strong and unwavering stand against the forces of evil?
Please note that the meeting with Fr. Wall, as chancellor, was requested by myself in order to have corrected unexplained and uncommunicated actions by a lawful superior who has apparently been acting from a perspective of secular humanism, and not from a proper faith in and understanding of almighty God. If I be in error in any manner, I ask to be properly corrected and if appropriate, admonished. I do not believe that any superior, in faith, has the right to act arbitrarily (without examination of all of the facts received from all concerned parties), or to proceed with actions, without explanation, which can easily be interpreted as disciplinary. These actions are a cause of scandal against myself for all those parishioners and others that are, or that become aware of the fact that I am not being assigned the hearing of confessions or the saying of Masses.
In regard to the meeting between Fr. Wall, Fr. Oberkirch and myself. If this meeting was confrontal it was due to Fr. Oberkirch's attitude which caused him to decide in his heart that I was automatically guilty of everything which he was now belatedly presenting. His conversation was not in the mode of a true discussion leading to a proper understanding of mutual concerns, but rather was presented in the sense that he was right because he was the one who was in the position of authority.
I believe sufficient answers to points one through three have already been made in paragraphs X, V-VII, XII-XIII, etc. In regard to point four I desire that it be noted that I had been made to feel by my initial rector that my presence at meals was not preferred. (A question, "Are conversations concerning religion and religious beliefs and practices to be discouraged at mealtimes as one prior pastor has done?") His rules regarding notification of being present at meals, as applied to myself, were other than those which had been told me by Fr. Gorman and the kitchen staff when I arrived in the parish and were stiffened as they were complied with. He also never made an attempt as a superior to directly communicate with myself. In regard to point five, please note that for one to be a team player one must have a team leader. A true leader is a man of principal who has a proper understanding of human nature and makes a substantive effort at team guidance. Fr. Oberkirch's references to this last point are unwarranted as he never even revealed to myself that there was any dissatisfaction with what I was doing or that there was a possible misunderstanding of what my duties and obligations might be. As to my notice given of no longer being willing to say Mass, after prior notification of intention, at the Carmelite monastery because of the habitual presence of dogs in chapel in an area immediately present to the tabernacle, a room designed for prayer, meditation and close association with our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ; this situation pre-dated Fr. Oberkirch's arrival as cathedral rector by more than a year. He, nor his predecessors, nor ~~the~~ you bishop, have ever brought up a desire to discuss this statement of intention to refuse to say Mass at the monastery (N.B. I have never, to include this date, been assigned to say Mass at the monastery since my initial statement was made. Additionally I had made an un-responded to phone call to your secretary in which I had desired to set up a meeting with you to explain my actions). I therefore believe that this point, at this time, is mute.
As no explanation of his intentions or reasons for his actions had been received, and since the aforementioned election was concluded with no foreseen reasonable belief that another moral statement against mayor elect Dow could be expected, his breaking of Canons 905.1 and .2 was uncalled for and defamatory. An apology and the moral requirement for the restitution of my good name I believe is still in order. Fr. Oberkirch is deluded in believing that he was protecting his (God's) people. However unlike himself, if I am reasonably shown to be in error and allowed time for proper reflection, I will happily apologize.
Page 3. Until this discussion took place, I did not understand it to be a rule that priests were always to eat in the dining room. I had been under the belief, since Fr. Sullivan's time as rector, that one was not welcome in the dining room if one had not been scheduled to be there. On these occasions, or when I was very late for whatever reason, I believed that it was more appropriate to eat left overs in the kitchen and not to disturb or take food from those who had proper dining reservations.
Regarding Fr. Oberkirch's response to the "References for Reflection" I furnished him and Fr. Wall (later given to yourself and to Fr. Gorman): if he knows of any pertinent references to duties of an associate which I am not observing, I ask that such references be furnished me for my edification.
In reference to Fr. Oberkirch's comments on my concern for reverent and proper practices for distribution of Holy Communion I believe that he is excessively sensitive to human concerns and insufficiently concerned and sensitive to abuse of Our Lord. It has been my experience, from the answers which I have received, that approximately four out of five of those who present themselves for Communion and do not make the prescribed response state that they are not Catholic. Failure to make the appropriate response occurs in about one out of sixty approaches to the Communion stations in the Cathedral. When there was no response, or an improper response had been given to the statement, "The Body of Christ", the statement was repeated a second and even a third time so as to be certain that the proper response would not be forth coming. It is only then that the question would be asked in a courteous manner, "Are you Catholic?" My question is, "Why should it be acceptable for one out of three hundred or so Catholics to feel indignant at being legitimately questioned when by simple listening over a period of many years they would have known the proper response?" They should have been properly instructed in years past! Or, is it that they are not responding because they do not truly believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? They would not be embarrassed if they were following the commonly understood teachings of the Church. Only those who state they are not Catholic are ever refused Communion. It is a mistake to apologize, as Fr. Oberkirch states he has done, to someone in error who has been legitimately corrected. In regard to the case of the mother and the retarded son I refer you to Canons 913 and 914 which state that children and those judged to be children are to be able to receive the Body of the Lord with faith and devotion, and be able to distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and receive Communion with reverence. It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to Holy Communion. The boy in question was not only clearly retarded but was also unable to control his own actions as evidence by the woman's need to control him by restraining his arms so that he could not grab and abuse the Lord. Because of the woman's disturbed attitude and the response she gave I did give the boy Communion. She however refused to receive.
It is sad that in the Catholic Church there is a lack of understanding of the meaning and value of the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Too often the reception of Communion is treated as a social event in which everyone is to participate, whether Catholic or non-Catholic or otherwise ineligible to receive. The prime Commandment states that we are to love God (first) with our whole mind, heart, body and soul. Then and only then are we to love equally our neighbor and ourselves. Love God first, then love humanity. The people have perpetrated on them a great disservice when they are not properly instructed in the faith or are otherwise mislead.
I accept that Fr. Oberkirch has been attempting to act in faith, but ask that he re-evaluate the direction of a proper relationship with God. Are we to act from human perspective, or, are we to attempt to see and understand as God sees and understands. We are finite beings. Our abilities are limited. For this reason God gave us His Word, Jesus Christ. Through His Word we come to know His Will which is expressed in His Writings (Sacred Scripture and other teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church). God is infallible and through his Church he has given us infallible teachings to which we are bound. Our love relationship with God is not to be laid waste by confusing love with emotion or with human sensitivities and false compassion. Jesus suffered and died on the cross because of the Father's love for Him and us. In Noah's time God destroyed the inhabitants of Earth. Later he destroyed the regions of Sodom and Gomorrah. He had Jerusalem destroyed with its temple and many of its people while sending most of the rest of the Jewish people into cruel slavery. He did all of this out of love so that others might be saved. Does not God ask us to see as he sees? Are we not to believe and act according to the example that He set for us? Are we our own vindicators or did Jesus through obedience to His and our Father vindicate us from the destiny which surely would have been ours? My understanding of Church teachings has been the basis for all of my actions. If I am in error, please help me to understand my error.
Reference Msgr. John R. Amos' letter: As Fr. Amos' commentary does not give specifics, there is little to respond to. He did not explain what he means by excessively long sermons or where in Church teachings length of sermons are governed. He has only made general statements of concern of which I was unaware during his term as rector. He never ascertained whether I knew of any of the matters to which he made reference. Indeed he never made effort as rector to converse with me regarding any problems or existing conditions, but rather accepted, as apparently others have done, that I was guilty on all counts without trial. This is not my understanding of the brotherly love which is supposed to be practiced by members of the Church for which Jesus was crucified.
Fr. Gorman's response expresses his hope that these matters be brought to a just and positive conclusion. I join him in his hope. Fr. Gorman refers to his being asked to act as Fr. Sullivan's spokesman. This may well be, but I point out that not having a direct relationship with one's pastor is not an ordinary occurrence in the Church. Fr. Sullivan, perhaps because of pre-conditioning as apparently has been the case with others, appraised me guilty in advance of my being assigned to the Cathedral parish and never approached me about anything concerning parish life. The reference to my causing people to be late returning to work I believe to be unfounded as previously explained in paragraph XIII. The statement Fr. Gorman attributes to me that inconvenienced people could go to Mass elsewhere is in error. It is not the type of statement I would make. Any such notion would only be from his own inference as to what may have been said. People are entitled to attend Mass where it is most convenient. I believe that weekday homilies which are preferred to be given, Canon 767.3, should not be of excessive duration. The content of the homilies are to be given for the overall good of the people as seen from God's perspective. I believe that I have complied with these understandings. Fr. Gorman's noonday masses have consistently ended later than mine. I have been told this by people who attend this mass. I have understood this to be primarily due to his frequent hearing of confessions up to and beyond the scheduled starting time for Mass. Perhaps if the rector would set a reasonable scheduled time for Mass to be completed, there would be a specific goal which normally could be complied with. It is of course hopeful that this would be found acceptable in all parishes of the diocese which have similar Mass situations. In reference to the statement attributed to me, "my homilies are more important", is in part in error and in part taken out of context of what I may have said. I believe that preaching is the proper foundation for the most beneficial reception of Holy Eucharist. Jesus spent years teaching and giving witness to His Word so that when we received Him we would have proper knowledge of Him, "Do this in memory of me". Jesus sent His disciples into the world to instruct them in His Word. He said go out and preach, not read, to all nations. The content of the Word of God must be explained so that it can be understood. Jesus frequently called his chosen aside and explained in a special manner to them the meaning of something he had said. The reception of Holy Eucharist (the real and full presence of Jesus) is most beneficial to communicants when they have received and accepted a true teaching of God's which has been clearly explained.
In reference to microphones: this is the first and only church building in which I have not been complimented for the clarity of my voice, including comparison with the speaking voices of other preachers in those same churches. Endeavoring to improve clarity I have tried all suggestions given. I have yet to be told there has been any improvement in quality of broadcast. It is possible that my voice rebounds in the Cathedral more than the voices of others and for this reason is less clear. I have been reliably informed that in years past there had been a much better sound system in the Cathedral which because of equipment age had been replaced with what turns out to be an inferior system. It does seem strange however that I have apparently received so many complaints on the content of sermons which could not be properly heard. In order to help resolve this question of appropriate use of microphones, perhaps Fr. Gorman would be willing to spend some time with me in the Church to help me establish how to best use or not use the microphones. He perhaps is the most qualified to do so because of his keen ear for sound.
Fr. Gorman seems to have a problem with quoting and taking out of context what I say to him. I do not recall the Pope ever making any comment as to the length of homilies which are given. I therefore have a great problem with believing that I ever quoted a statement which I do not recall having ever heard. I suggest to Fr. Gorman, as I suggested to Fr. Oberkirch, that when someone registers a complaint with him he should handle it directly only when he has a sufficient understanding of the psychology of human denial. He should also make note of the complainers name and phone number and suggest that a meeting be set up in which the complaint can be aired and beneficially concluded in the way of true brothers in Christ. If the complainant is not willing to resolve his complaint in the manner of brothers of Christ, it should be set aside as invalid.
Regarding confessions: Here again is a problem handled after the manner of an executioner who decides, without trial, judge, jury or allowing the defendant to be faced by his accusers, to carry out an execution totally on his own responsibility. So be it. As to my professed hardness and coldness I can only relate to the number of people who have returned to me in confession at a later date and thanked me for the help which I had given them while stating that they had been to other confessors many times before who had never helped them overcome their problems. The only additional evaluation I can give regarding complainers is that they may have been following legal observances and were not truly prepared to make spiritual changes in their lives (refer to Canon 987). As to what Fr. Gorman terms unreasonable penances I refer him to Canon 981 which says to give salutary and appropriate penances based on the kind and number of sins confessed. It does not seem appropriate to me, according to this canon, that one who has been an apostate and/or has committed very serious sins repeatedly over a long period of time should be given penances which are normally given to frequent devotional receivers of the grace conferred by the sacrament of penance. It seems that we have reached the point of extreme minimalism in the penances given to penitents. It seems further that priests have been discouraging confessions by trivializing them with minimal or no penances. The faithful are being lead to believe that confession is of little or no value. This process of minimization of penances I believe to be a major factor, along with homilies concerning human peace and pacification (mankind focused love), in the tremendous decline in the number of people going to confession. In the minds of the majority confession has come to have little or no value. The number of individuals who have received penances of thirty or fifty Hail Mary's or Our Fathers have been relatively few. Probably no more than eight or ten out of the total number of confessions I have heard at the Cathedral. The question occurs to me, how did such a great percentage of these, at least most of whom stated they had not been to confession in a number of years, find their way to Fr. Gorman? As to his remitting penances without finding out the basis for the penances seems to be in direct violation of Canon 981 and the gospel of John 20:23 which states that it is the priest's determination, in good conscience, as to whether absolution is even given. Note also in Canon 981 that: "The penitent is bound personally to fulfill" the penances given. Questions for consideration: If the penitent does not accept the penance given, is the absolution valid? Is not the priest to whom an appeal is made required therefore to re-hear the confession and then again give absolution? It seems to me that Fr. Gorman is acting on his own opinions which are not Church teaching (the number of others who may concur with him is irrelevant since God is not concerned with weight of numbers, but only with truth and justice properly understood). As these are unsupported opinions, he should at least be flexible enough to allow one who is acting on supported beliefs to function with out his having unsupported beliefs imposed upon him. He states that three people are willing to come forward to speak about matters mentioned. This perhaps should be done as long as they understand that they will have to restate their confessions for examination. The difficulty with this is that I will be unable to contest what they say if they make less than a full presentation of their prior confession which is under seal.
The matter of the Carmelite nuns having companionship with dogs in chapel, a place where they are supposed to be having undisturbed communion with God, has been dealt with, at least for the time being, in paragraph XXI.
A major part of the problems which I have been having with fathers Oberkirch and Gorman (and possibly Fr. Sullivan, R.I.P.) seems to be that I do not fit into their form of conservative mold. Those of liberal persuasion have a different but similar mold in that they commonly profess to be open on all accounts when in reality they are not willing to give this same freedom, which they have (humanly) obtained, to those who disagree with them. May our just God have mercy on souls and increase his guidance to us.
Fr. Warren Wall has stated that I am an imposing person and appear intimidating to others. My reflection is that such intimidated persons should have their faith, love and trust focused on Jesus our savior. Jesus, who had such a relationship with his Father, did not cringe before those who were imposing figures and who had real power from the Father to give sentences of real pain and even human death. The apostles, the prophets, the martyrs and others had such solidity of faith and relationship with God that what others imposed upon them was of no concern to them. Because of their trust in God they were not intimidated by the appearances of others.

Addendum to letter:
November 20, 1989
Responding to letter which I received November 15 wherein you forwarded correspondence from Fr. Aherne dated November 6, 1989:
I recall the meeting between us and Fr. Aherne held in your office prior to my being assigned to St. Mary's in September 1983 as an associate pastor. During this meeting it was established that discussions concerning religious matters could be freely held during meals. During my first days at St. Mary's some limited discussions did take place though they seemed to make Fr. Aherne uncomfortable. I do not recall that there was at any time during these discussions any animosity or adversity. Sometime within the first five days of my stay there Fr. Aherne called me into the front parlor and told me I would no longer be permitted to discuss anything concerning religion at mealtimes. He was obviously upset. During this interchange there was some discussion on authenticity of sources of teachings and beliefs. He became very annoyed when I stated a lack of confidence in the quality of the writings of some contemporary scholars he apparently held in high esteem. He was sufficiently disturbed that it was decided further conversation would be useless at that time. While I may well have been less than happy with the discussion which had taken place, I do not believe that it was appropriate of him to state that I was angry. I do not recall there ever being further conversation with him on anything regarding religion except possibly concerning routine parish matters.
Another incident that took place in your office during the aforementioned meeting was a reaction I noted of Fr. Aherne's to a reply you made to a question I asked concerning an understanding of Humanae Vitae. During your response to my question you were looking at me, I was looking at Fr. Aherne and Fr. Aherne was looking at you. When you endorsed the teachings of Humanae Vitae regarding the sinfulness of contraceptive practices, Fr. Aherne clearly looked dismayed though he did not make any response. Fr. Aherne has called me a very rigid and inflexible person. When it comes to my upholding authentic teachings of the Church he is quite correct. I do not place the notions of contemporary theologians on an equal plain with universal Papal or approved Curial teachings. I believed when seeing his reaction that my stay at St. Mary's might well be very brief, as indeed it was. My error perhaps was in not saying anything at the time. However, I was at a loss as to how to make a meaningful and appropriate comment. As to the quotation he attributes to me concerning my being "successful in business and therefore ...a success as a priest", sounds more to be a pre-cognition he had already established in his own mind. He may possibly have felt intimidated by my prior life experiences.
Fr. Aherne states that the greatest area of his anxiety with me was his concern for my handling of penitents in the Sacrament of Penance. He fails to state the specific problems or disagreements and does not state he had given any proposed solutions. I do not recall any discussion with Fr. Aherne regarding his anxiety. However you Bishop did state that there was some reaction of a penitent regarding a statement I made in the confessional concerning the seriousness of the sin of masturbation. It seems that this particular penitent was apparently disturbed because he had previously been told, probably by the priest who reported the incident to you, that this act was at best a minor sin and really need not even be confessed. It is understandable that being given this disparity of teaching he could be greatly annoyed. My position on the question of masturbation is taken from Section 9. of the "Declaration On Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics". It states: "the magisterium of the Church - in the course of constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act." Other than your informing me of the incident, I do not recall your making any comment concerning its rightness or wrongness.
Many priests help penitents in their denial of sin by downgrading the gravity of the sins confessed or by stating that one or more of the (serious) sins confessed were not really even sins. These priests even go to the extent of telling the penitents that they should not even bother confessing such trivialities in the future. Many priests encourage penitents to treat confession as a social event in which pleasantries are to be exchanged. In doing so they encourage the belief that sin and confession are not to be taken seriously. Many priests downplay the importance of sin and confession because they do not believe in the existence of hell. Others that do acknowledge the existence of hell believe and even teach that no one actually goes there. I recall a catechist re-education class held in Los Angeles in approximately 1977 in which a Fr. David Sork made the statement that humans never go to hell. He stated that hell was made only for fallen angels. He disclaimed the authenticity of the apparitions of Fatima when reference was made to them regarding the reality of hell. Another statement he made at the time was that mortal sins were forgiven by the reception of Holy Communion without prior confession. With these and other false beliefs being taught to the people of God it is little wonder that confession no longer has value to most Catholics.
When a mother sees her small son doing something which he shouldn't, should she ignore what he is doing? Should she tell the child that it is not really a bad thing which he has done? Or perhaps she should tell her son that he shouldn't really do it but if he repeats the action he shouldn't worry because there will not be any punishment forth coming?
What should a father do in relation to an errant older child, ignore his destructive activity? Sacred Scripture states that parents of an unruly son are to have him apprehended and testify against him to the elders who are then to stone him to death (DT 21:18). Sirach 30:8 states that "a son left to himself grows up unruly". Are not priests who make light of sin and repentance cooperators with Satan in his efforts to keep souls from entering eternal life?
Fr. Aherne writes of tension in the rectory and a condition of intolerability. I did not feel this lack of harmony except insofar as he was concerned. There was however some degree of dissatisfaction with my placing and removing of the corporal on the altar at Mass each day. The existing practice was to leave the corporal on the altar for several days at a time. I believed then and I still do believe that this practice shows disrespect to the Lord and is a sign of weakness of faith in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.
If the above mentioned beliefs and practices are what makes me guilty of disharmony, then so be it.
I to believe that I have been honest and open in giving my assessment as to what has transpired in the past. Any disharmony in the Church should be closely scrutinized and resolved in favor of betterment of proper spiritual relationships with the Lord. For this I have frequently offered Masses and prayers. There should be no anger or animosity between brother servants of the Lord. I for my part have none towards anyone. If I be in error in any matter, please invoke the needed "Spiritual Works of Mercy".
I pray and hope that all who read these responses to presentations made regarding myself will give them extensive study and allow proper time for reflection. Since the very early days of the Church there have continually been theological problems. Each problem in its turn is eventually resolved. It is my earnest hope that current problems, which have caused so many Catholics to leave the Church or become nominal believers, will also be resolved. I patiently await commentary and/or discussion, jointly or individually, from each party concerned in this interchange.

Enclosures: Robin Perry Speech
References for Reflection
A Letter Home - 22 January 2023
Fact and Comment II - Forbes

cc: Rev. Msgr. James W. Oberkirch
Rev. Msgr. John R. Amos
Very Rev. G. Warren Wall
Rev. William N. Gorman
Very Rev. John Aherne, V.G.

WOMEN'S CHOICE! IS IT? Speech given at pro-life rally in Mobile, AL by: Robin Perry

I want to talk to you today on a subject that is not a pretty one, but a subject that we can not afford to ignore, abortion. It is the most divisive subject of our time. This is a subject that is very hard for me to talk about, but I must speak out if I am to educate even one person regarding this evil and how it is destroying families in our community.

Our women are being deceived. We're being fed Woman's Choice, it's being shoved down our throats so fast and so far that it is killing us.

We have women standing up and shouting "women's rights", "pro-choice" and we have been falling for it hook, line and sinker. That's how we are getting deceived so easily, because there are women in the front of the lies leading these groups, and we think because they are "one of us" that they must really be concerned about our welfare. Well please don't be deceived; these kind of women are dangerous to the welfare of women, children and society. They don't care about women's rights, all they care about is making a name for themselves through exploiting women and children. They feed on hurting women, that is their target to make them look good, when the fact is that they are the one's that are causing so much hurt and anguish to our women.

We are constantly being told that it's a woman's body and that only she has the right to decide whether to bare children or not. What they are telling us is that the woman should have the only decision about whether her baby, which is an individual human being growing inside her body, should live or die. What they are not telling us is that when that baby is dead, and the mother realizes that her baby is dead, and she begins to be tormented day and night with guilt and grief because she cannot hold her baby because that decision is irreversible, (abortion is permanent) that she is then on her own because nobody cares what happens to her after she has made that choice. All anyone seems to care about is that she did have the "right to choose," after that "honey, you are on your own. It's not their concern anymore. They accomplished what they had set out to do, give you a "free choice" at the expense of your baby's life, your sanity and at the expense of everyone around you (a woman suffering from Post-Abortion Syndrome, PAS, can be very destructive to herself and everyone around her).

They accomplished what they set out to do which was and is making their name and face well known. They are in it for the power and the money.

The Bible tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil, the lust for money, the craving for power, the overwhelming need to control, that's what these people are all about.

When I was 19, I had an abortion. There was no one there to try to talk me out of it. There was no one to discuss alternatives. There was no one there to pick me up when it was all over and life began to crumble. The fact is, it wasn't over, for the pain had just begun.

Abortion was supposed to solve my problems. It didn't. It only created new ones. Abortion was supposed to terminate my pregnancy, not kill my baby.

Now I know what terminate means, to put an end to, but during a crisis situation somehow terminate and kill just don't seem to add up to the same thing, abortion.

That's why it is so important for us as parents to be educated to the fullest as to what abortion is and what happens to the family following an abortion. Young people, you need to be educated and you need to be understanding next time someone in your school is faced with and unexpected pregnancy. You just might be able to save a baby from destruction.

Maybe if it didn't seem that everyone had turned against this young girl because "she got herself pregnant", maybe if just one person would say, "It's OK., I still love you," or "You can take this mistake and make something good of it by giving your baby life and let someone who can't have a child take her or him to love and to raise," maybe then she would not think that abortion is the only answer.

Young people, if you know someone in your school who's had an abortion, befriend them, love them, at least exchange a warm smile or a greeting from time to time. She is hurting. She is dying inside. She is headed down a road of self-destruction and unless someone reaches out to her through the love of Jesus Christ, she will die. She already hates herself and if everyone keeps whispering and staring, the hate and the self-destruction will continue to grow and fester until she explodes.

I had to go across the state line, abortion was not yet legal in Alabama. I was never counseled with. I was not given other options or alternatives. Adoption was never mentioned. I was told that it was only tissue and that it would take about ten minutes and that I would only feel a small amount of pain, if any. It was not tissue, it was a baby, two of them. I had twins, one girl, one boy. It took about thirty minutes and the pain was unbearable. My babies died a horrible death.

Upon arriving at the clinic they gave me a tranquilizer to calm me down and relax me. Before the abortion began, as I was laying on the table, the tranquilizer had taken effect and it seemed that there was no longer a crisis situation, and I was calm. The excitement of all that was happening, the anxiety and fear were gone. I was no longer afraid to deal with the pregnancy and I told them that I changed my mind and wanted to keep my baby.

The nurse told me that it was just the medication talking and that I really didn't want to change my mind. I kept telling them that I changed my mind and nobody would listen to me. The pain was horrible and they held my arms down so I couldn't hit anyone. That day they took away my CHOICE.

After it was over and I was in recovery, I kept crying and the nurses were so cruel to me. They kept telling me I was acting like a baby and that I was upsetting everyone around me.

From that time on I put up a wall that no one would ever be able to get past. I blocked the abortion from my mind as if it had never happened.

Within a year of the abortion I gave birth to a baby boy. I didn't know what I was going to do with him or how I was going to care for him with my marriage getting worse each day and two small children, ages four and five, but I knew I had to try.

As the years went by I grew farther from my two girls and I overprotected my son. I began to drink heavily and to take drugs. I began to have nightmares while sleeping, and while awake I would hear babies crying and there would be no baby there. I would walk through a grocery store and would not go down an isle that had a baby in it. Sometimes if there were a lot of babies that day or if a baby cried I would become hysterical and begin crying and become angry. I was afraid of beautiful little babies, but at the same time I was drawn to them.

The alcohol and the drugs became more frequent as did the nightmares. I became less of a mother. I had so much hate inside of me for myself and for everyone around. I didn't think that anyone could love me and thought that everyone was my enemy, then one day Jesus Christ changed my life.

It took ten years for the healing to begin. It's been two years and I have come a long way, but it takes time for the years of un-dealt with emotions to heal. Ten years of garbage being fed into my body, mind and spirit.

I've spent the past two years dealing with my emotions, my fears, grieving over the death of my two children, learning how to be a mother to my three children at home and learning to love others, but most important, learning how to forgive myself for what I had done.

The way I came to PAIRS is a very important part of my testimony. The PAIRS office had relocated to the Harvest Church building, which is where I attended church at that time. I was a brand new Christian. I was so happy and full of life; that is until "those people" moved into our building. I was so angry because they were there. I could not stand the thoughts of anyone coming into my church, my sanctuary and talking about abortion. I hated that word.

Since I had been saved 5 months earlier I had not had a single nightmare. Now all of a sudden they were back again. I was having flashbacks of a day 10 years before. I couldn't cope with what was happening to me. I wasn't ready to face reality. I began eating to suppress the emotions that were surfacing, and from that I developed an eating disorder called Bulimia. In only a few short weeks I went from 115 pounds to 150 pounds. I had no control over my life anymore.

A week before Thanksgiving Day in 1987 I confided in a friend at church, about my eating problems and my nightmares (but not about the abortion) and asked her to please pray for me and she did. She prayed such a beautiful prayer and asked God to reveal to me the source behind my illness and my dreams. That night as I was leaving the church God spoke to me in an almost audible voice and told me to go to the PAIRS office. I knew that I had to obey God if I wanted to get past this thing.

The following day I was very nervous as I saw the kids off to school and got in my car and headed to the PAIRS office. When I arrived at the Church I decided that I would first go into the sanctuary and pray. Deep down inside I knew that once I got into that sanctuary, that would be as far as I would go, because I really didn't want to go to that office.

When I walked into the foyer of the church and headed toward the sanctuary, I couldn't believe my eyes. There was a sign hung over the big double doors that said, "Sanctuary Closed Until Sunday Services." Well, I decided to use the side door so I could say that I didn't see the sign, but when I got around there, there was another sign with the same statement. Well, I don't give up easily and neither does God. There was still one more door. A door that no one hardly ever uses. I couldn't believe it...another sign, same message. Why was God doing this to me!?

By this time I was almost in a run as I made my way through the back of the church to the PAIRS office. When I got there I just froze. I reached for the door but I couldn't open it. Just then the door opened and there stood Eleanor Ramsey with the love of Jesus all over her face. She said, "May I help you?" I just fell in her arms and began to cry uncontrollably for what must have been an hour or more. She just held me in her arms and said, "It's OK, I love you and Jesus loves you right where you are." That day was the beginning of a "new life" for me and my family. That day my healing began.

The reason I have gone into such detail of how I came to PAIRS and how my healing began is that it is important for you to know just how important I am to God. He loves me no matter what. Jesus died for "ME", I was a nobody and Jesus picked me up, put the pieces together and transformed me into a beautiful butterfly.

There are other Robins out there who are hurting and if only someone would take her in their arms, just like Eleanor did with me, and hold her and tell her that it's OK, and that you love her no matter what and that Jesus loves her, then she too can become a beautiful butterfly and receive the healing of her heart and soul.

I don't care who you are. You have not sinned more than what God can forgive. You are somebody in Christ Jesus. God makes no mistakes.

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, THE LOVE OF CHRIST, IS THE ONLY ANSWER IF THIS GENERATION IS TO SURVIVE; TO COME OUT OF THE PIT IT IS IN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

REFERENCES FOR REFLECTION by: Rev. David C. Trosch

EX 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

EX 23:1f You shall not repeat a false report. Do not join the wicked in putting your hand, as an unjust witness, upon anyone. ^2. Neither shall you allege the example of the many as an excuse for doing wrong, nor shall you, when testifying in a lawsuit, side with the many in perverting justice.

LV 19:15 "You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgement. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow man justly. ^16. You shall not go about spreading slander among your kinsmen; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor's life is at stake. I am the Lord. ^17. "You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart. Though you may have to reprove your fellow man, do not incur sin because of him.

DT 19:15ff One witness alone shall not take the stand against a man in regard to any crime or any offense of which he may be guilty; a judicial fact shall be established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ^16. "If an unjust witness takes the stand against a man to accuse him of a defection from the law, ^17. the two parties in the dispute shall appear before the Lord in the presence of the priests or judges in office at the time; ^18. and if after a thorough investigation the judges find that the witness is a false witness and has accused his kinsman falsely, you shall do to him as he planned to do to his kinsman.

PROV 19:5,9 The false witness shall not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will not escape.

PROV 24:28 Be not a witness against your neighbor without just cause, thus committing folly with your lips.

SIR 19:11 Like an arrow lodged in a man's thigh is gossip in the breast of a fool. ^12. Admonish your friend - he may not have done it; and if he did, that he may not say it again. ^13. Admonish your neighbor - he may not have said it; and if he did, that he may not say it again. ^14. Admonish your friend - often it may be slander; every story you must not believe.

MT 18:15 "If your brother should commit some wrong against you, go and point out his fault, but keep it between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. ^16. If he does not listen, summon another, so that every case may stand on the word of two or three witnesses. ^17. If he ignores them, refer it to the church...

JN 20:23 If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound.

GAL 6:1 My brothers, if someone is detected in sin, you who live by the spirit should gently set him right, each of you trying to avoid falling into temptation himself. ^2. Help carry one another's burdens; in that way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

1TI 5:19f Pay no attention to an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. ^20. The ones who do commit sin, however, are to be publicly reprimanded, so that the rest may fear to offend. ^21. I charge you before God, Christ Jesus, and the chosen angels: apply these rules without prejudice, act with complete impartiality! ^22. Never lay hands hastily on anyone, or you may be sharing in the misdeeds of others. Keep yourself pure.

Calumny - a false and malicious statement meant to hurt someone's reputation.

Gossip - a person who repeats idle talk and rumors.

Slander - the utterance in the presence of another person of a false statement or statements, damaging to a third person's character or reputation.

Pontius Pilate listened to the outcry against Him, and had Him crucified!

Can 275.1 clerics are to be united with one another in the bond of brotherhood and prayer.
Can 545 assistant priests are sharers with the parish priest by common counsel and effort.
Can 528 the Word of God is to be proclaimed in its entirety.
Can 767.1 the mysteries of the faith and the rules of christian living are to be expounded.
Can 768.2 Priests are to teach people's social obligations and the ordering of temporal affairs.
Can 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and appropriate penances, in proportion to the kind and number of sins confessed.
Can 905.1 ... a priest may not celebrate (mass) more than once a day.
Can 905.2 ... a priest may celebrate mass three times on Sundays only if pastoral need requires it.
Can 384 a bishop is to have special concern for the priests, to whom he is to listen as his helpers and counsellors. He is to defend their rights.
Can 386.2 A bishop is to defend the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed.
Can 392.1 Since the bishop must defend the unity of the universal Church, he is bound to foster the discipline which is common to the whole Church, and so press for the observance of all ecclesiastical laws.
1JN 3:1 "The reason the world does not recognize us is that it never recognized the Son."

Archbishop Lipscomb's Pro-Life Speech in Pensacola and Rebuttal

The Antichrist Links to Correspondence at Top

Suffering in Hell Relating to God God is Love
Entry Page HOME Site Map E-MAIL:

Editor

Books and Religious Gift Items

This web site is produced and provided as a service by Life Enterprises Unlimited.
Contents may be reproduced ?unchanged? provided source, with link, is noted.
Current Debt is in excess of $50,000.00
Please help us to continue this service. Mail contributions to:

LIFE ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED
(A 501-c-3 Non-Profit Organization)
P. O. Box 850307
Mobile, AL 36685
U. S. A.