Bishop Tod Brown Says He And Father Michael McKiernan Were "Together" For Seven Years + More On Urell's Trip To Canada

Bishop Tod Brown's deposition is an eye-opening read. The section below caught my attention. It's about Bishop Brown's former secretary, Father Michael McKiernan. Brown and McKiernan lived together at Brown's renovated home on Darmel Place in Santa Ana.

According to the public records, Tod Brown purchased this property back in August of 1998 for $388,000 – all cash. The additions and the whole remodeling that county records indicate Brown made to the property since the purchase indicate that he could have easily sold this property for at least $1,500,000. That is a profit of $1,112,000.

I believe Brown did sell Darmel Place, though he may not have made as much money on the sale.

The following section of Bishop Tod Brown's deposition is taken from the bottom of page 140 and continues until the top of page 142:

Question: And how about [name redacted]. Which of the two committees was he on?

Bishop Brown: [Name redacted] was on that same committee. I believe that’s correct.

Question: And why did he resign?

Bishop Brown: My recollection is when he came to see me, that he felt being on the committee was a great emotional strain for him, that he was -- it just making everything -- it was making him relive his whole -- make him relive his abuse experience.

Question: Did he ever tell you that one of the reasons he was resigning is because Monsignor McKiernan would show -- or Father Mckiernan would show at the meetings drunk?

Bishop Brown: No, he did not.

Question: Your sworn testimony is that never occurred?

Bishop Brown: He never told me that, and I was not aware of that.

Question: I don’t mean whether or not Monsignor McKiernan was drunk. I mean -- is it Father or Monsignor, Bishop?

Bishop Brown: Father. Father. Father.

Question: Okay. My question, and I apologize because it was confusing. My question -- I want to be very clear about this. Did Mr. [name redacted] ever tell you that he felt that Monsignor -- sorry -- that Father McKiernan was coming to the sexual review meetings in a -- in an intoxicated state?

Bishop Brown: I don’t recall that.

Question: Does that mean it didn’t happen or you just forgot?

Bishop Brown: I don’t -- I don’t think it happened.

Question: Was Father McKiernan living with you at that time?

Bishop Brown: Yes, he was.

Question: Did you ever discuss the sexual abuse cases with him?

Bishop Brown: Yes, we did discuss them sometimes.

Question: And do you recall anything you said?

Bishop Brown: No, I do not.

Question: How long did you live with Father McKiernan?

Bishop Brown: We were together about -- about roughly seven years.

Together? I've had roommates before, and I have one now. I've never described sharing a house or an apartment with a roommate as being "together" with anyone.

Why would Bishop Brown set himself up by saying something like that? What was he thinking?

Bonus: More On Urell's Trip To Canada

More videos after the jump...

Private Idaho by The B-52's

Campfire Scene from My Own Private Idaho

Afternoon Delight by Starland Vocal Band

Comments

[Mona Alona]

Well I know what I'm thinking but I better not comment on it or I'll end up in the confessional today.

Love Shack is one of my favorite songs but I won't be able to listen to it with the same enthusiasm as I did before reading this post.

[jn]

Thomistic,

You just ruined this song for me, thank you very much. :-(

Jn

Oh, come on! Are you really going to read into "we were together" in the most negative way possible? McKiernan was Brown's personal secretary, driver, and clergy personnel director. Let's see how YOU speak when you're under fire in a deposition! Give the Bishop room to speak without reading more into it for God's sake!

[Mona Alona]

It was very nice of the Bishop to assign him as pastor to the yet to be built Cathedral church, I'd like to think it was just his way of showing his appreciation to the seven years of hard work and nothing more. I wonder why I can't get the Love Shack song out of my head?

[Thomistic]

Fr. Heath,

I didn't "read" anything into what he said. I said he set himself up by his choice of words.

Rumors have been swirling around Bishop Brown for years. I don't think Bishop Brown did himself any favors by that choice of words. I have no idea if the rumors are true, but I do think that people slip up and reveal themselves sometimes when they're talking€– especially if they're nervous, under pressure, or caught off guard.

In Bishop Brown's case, he may have been choosing his words so carefully in one area that he slipped up.

Reading the deposition as a whole, though, I'd have to say that Bishop Brown doesn't seem open and transparent. It's clear that his attorney coached him and it sounds like they were caught using a signal to indicate that Bishop Brown needed to be careful in his answers. (Brown's attorney would remind Bishop Brown to take a breath before answering).

I'm confused why an open, transparent bishop even needed to be grilled like this. Why not just spill the beans, let the chips fall where they may, and get the whole thing over and done with?

Pax,

Thomistic

[Atlanta Catholic]

Dear Father Heath,

I know that you are well aware of the truth that is slowly but surely coming out.

The dam is leaking out revealing facts about the corrupt leadership at Marywood all over the entire Diocese of Orange. The dyke is just about to burst.

You probably won't want to be caught in the middle of the flood when it happens.

Still, I would be careful about giving the appearance of defending a sinking ship. It's interesting to note that when Bishop McFarland was informed of Bishop Brown's personnel changes and new positions and policies he was creating at Marywood, Bishop McFarland was overheard saying, "Yes, and they rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic just before it went down!"

Here's the trouble I have with what you've said, Fr. Heath; you seem to be part of the same problem and not trying to help find a solution. it seems to me that the alternative would be that you wanted this to end. You would think it was an answer to prayer for the Diocese of Orange to undergo a housecleaning. It seems that if you really wanted this to end, you would be embarrassed that Bishop Tod Brown was duplicitous in keeping his secret when he promised to be open and transparent. You would certainly want Bishop Brown to at least, "give the appearance" that he is sad over the second betrayal effects that this secret may have on the victims of priest abuse.

Instead, in Tod Brown, we have a bishop who is being accused of contempt of court in the headlines, but reported in the press as hanging out at a local bar, chugging down beers. He should have an attitude of humility and be keeping a low profile. Someone who is contrite and seriously reflecting on the damage he has done would not be observed hanging out at local bars while under the glare of this kind of media scrutiny. His actions and omissions have been very unwise!!!

Why would anyone keep defending a bishop who promoted legal recognition for homosexual domestic partnerships in a memo to all of his priests?

I am convinced that there is more to all of this than you know.

[jeffreycunniffe@mac.com]

$388k cash on a clergymans salary? Was this church property?

I have never heard of a rumor about Bishop Brown's proclivities; I am surprised. I am not "well aware" of these issues, and only as a result of reading this blog have I even been exposed to them. There is no official diocesan communications to us priests, no warnings, no talking points. Most parish priests are too busy in their pastoral work to keep up with rumors or diocesan administration actions.
I didn't care for Bishop's domestic partnership opinion, and I have different views on liturgy and church design, among other things. I am expressing incredulity, not defending him. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. That may be foolish in your view, but it's where I start when I hear negative things about people. You've all been digging around in this for years, so you're all convinced and sure of yourselves. At least grant me the freedom to be skeptical and surprised and ignorant!
I have never been in any diocesan position, and I'm glad I haven't been. If there is more fallout to come, I'm glad to be just a low man on the totem pole, disconnected from the power structure, doing ordinary parish work and being left alone.
Maybe because I'm conservative I'm not on the "inside track" or connected to the "right people"; this may be my salvation in the event of a housecleaning, but it shields me from knowing stuff.

[David Corcoran (Consanescerion)]

Atlanta Catholic: Fr. Heath is one of the most devoted servants of God and His people that I have known. He has given his full devotion in very difficult circumstances. He is quite orthodox in his teachings. I have known him most of my life.

To all: Please practice some charity, even to those you regard as your enemies, lest you be judged harshly and risk being consigned to Sheol. Repeating unsubstantiated rumors or deliberately misinterpreting words. Love the Lord, love and pray for his people and the leaders among the.

The clergy ephebophilia scandal is quite bad enough, there is no need to do the work of the enemies of the Church for them!

[David Corcoran (Consanescerion)]

I left out a few words: Repeating unsubstantiated rumors or deliberately misinterpreting words... is the sin of scandal.

[Patrick]

I left out a few words: Repeating unsubstantiated rumors or deliberately misinterpreting words... is the sin of scandal.

I don't think Thomistic is doing either of the above. Many members of the laity are in danger of falling away from the Church in disgust because of the official policies and behavior of bishops and priests like Tod Brown. The laity are the ones in the position to make a fuss about it all.

Unfortunately, priests--even good orthodox priests, are constrained by the fact that they are part of the system and stand to lose alot. They can't really criticize their bishops. We, the laity, should have been raising these concerns years ago. Maybe the pervert-priest scandals and cover-ups would not have gotten so out of hand.

Thanks, Dave!
In the middle of all the politics, intrigue, righteous anger, and speculation, let's remember something: "We are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers...against the spiritual hosts of wickedness" (Eph 6:12). Humans--yes even bishops and priests--can be inept, fearful, protective, theologically challenged, reactive, etc, but ultimately it isn't just some guy you're fighting. Satan is having a field day with the weaknesses revealed in our leaders, and in the infighting we engage in while trying to figure out who's at fault. Would I have done any better under the circumstances? I hope so, but who knows? The world, the flesh, and the devil have been conspiring against the Church for 2000 years; this age is no different than any other--only now, we have a willing media and anti-Catholic society to report to the whole world just how weak we can be. We'll survive this too, but it's easy to get lost in all the details of individual personalities and events and circumstances, and forget the big picture: Christ wins, and He wins in us!

[Thomistic]

David Corcoran,

I understand where you're coming from. I too want to avoid the sin of scandal.

I might mention, though, that the sin of scandal isn't "repeating unsubstantiated rumors or deliberately misinterpreting words".

What you have described would more appropriately be termed rash judgment, and repeating such judgments would be properly termed calumny, detraction, or slander, or libel if it's in print. All of these are sins against the Eighth Commandment.

Scandal is leading others into sin by our words, actions, or omissions.

I will admit that it is possible, and even likely that others would be led into sin when they hear others break the Eighth Commandment.

However, I would caution you against rash judgment in your responses to what has been said here.

When people see a man and a woman living together who are not related and unmarried, it is a scandal, because their actions provoke the suspicion, or even the assumption, that they are sexually active (especially in this day and age). You will see from what I write below that Bishop Brown's own actions have provoked the rumors swirling around him in much the same way a couple like the one I've described would provoke assumptions about their lifestyle.

I have not repeated any specific rumors about Bishop Brown. I have only repeated Bishop Brown's own words and mentioned that his choice of words may strike some people as an odd way to describe his living situation with Fr. Michael McKiernan. I might add that I did not deliberately set out to misconstrue those words. A reader pointed them out to me, and this reader told me that the person who pointed it out to them mentioned that she and her husband thought that "we were together" was an odd and perhaps revealing choice of words for Bishop Brown to use to describe his living situation with Fr. Michael McKiernan.

It's not detraction, slander, libel, or even rash judgment to report that Bishop Brown said "we were together" and also point out that this was a poor choice of words given the rumors swirling around Bishop Brown.

Now, you may contend that one shouldn't listen to or acknowledge the existence of such rumors, and I would agree with you if the rumors had sprung from malicious speculation and without any sort of antecedent behavior on Bishop Brown's part.

However, Bishop Brown has a long history of publicly supporting homosexual "rights"; even in ways that are "wrong" because they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

I will now repeat some things I have said elsewhere, because these things are facts, not rumors, and these facts are things Bishop Brown has done which have made people wonder about his motives.

I am sad that Bishop Brown is what he is, and I am even sadder to know that many Catholics refuse to see what he is, make excuses for what he is, or even love what he is, instead of seeing that Bishop Brown's goals, however in step with the times, are out of step with the mind of Christ and His Church.

He protected Fr. Cesar Salazar. He continues to support Rod Stephens. He endorsed homosexual domestic partnerships in a FAX to all of his priests. He allowed Fr. Art Holquin, pastor of the Mission San Juan Capistrano, to print an article in the parish bulletin claiming that homosexual priests are a gift to the Church. Bishop Brown clearly agrees, since his written commentary on the Instruction on the Criteria for Vocational Discernment with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and Holy Orders, which Bishop Brown sent to his priests, includes this statement: "Many of us know priests, who have told us of their homosexual orientation, and are faithful to the celibate life, dedicated to the teachings of the Church and personally generous in the service of God’s people. This document does not imply that such priests are defective in any way. We know that they are not."

How can a priest with an intrinsically disordered orientation not be defective? All of us are sinners. All of us are defective. Why would he say priests with strong homosexual tendencies are not defective "in any way"?

Here's the whole text of Bishop Brown's commentary: Bishop Tod Brown's comments to his priests on the Instruction on the Criteria for Vocational Discernment with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and Holy Orders

In my opinion, Bishop Brown's sympathy for homosexual rights (which is documented in the Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange, and throughout Roman Catholic Blog) is rooted in more than Christian compassion. He's gone out of his way to support homosexuality and those living homosexual lifestyles, both here and when he was the Bishop of Boise.

I don't know if Bishop Brown has a relative or close friend who has strong homosexual tendencies, or if Bishop Brown has them himself, but there seems to be something there, and I wish it wasn't a violation of the rules of political correctness to ask why homosexuality is so dear to Bishop Tod Brown's heart.

It certainly would explain his empathy for a priest like Fr. Cesar Salazar, wouldn't it?

I know that some priests with homosexual tendencies can be faithful and even good priests, but not if they endorse lifestyle choices contrary to Catholic moral teaching or lead others to believe that Catholic morality is a matter of personal conscience which doesn't require conforming to the ordinary (or extraordinary) Magisterium.

I believe, strongly, that the evidence from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Study demonstrates that the abuse scandals predominantly involved homosexual acts with boys past the age of puberty. All the literature I've read says that pedophiles only target children before puberty, and most don't have a gender preference.

Political correctness has caused the scandals to be called pedophilia scandals (or, more generically, sex abuse scandals), but few in the mainstream have acknowledged that 80.9% of the victims were boys and most of those boys were past puberty, making it primarily a pederasty scandal. The minority of cases involving true pedophilia and/or the abuse of girls were used as a shield to continue to cover up the fact that a lot of priests have strong homosexual tendencies because they were allowed in seminaries by lax and/or agenda driven seminary gatekeepers (and many of them may have been homosexual) and, as a result, a lot of homosexual ephebophiles (pederasts) were thereby admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

I think the scandals were, in large part, caused by or perpetuated by (through cover-ups and priest shuffling), homosexual priests and bishops, who had sexual weaknesses themselves (whether they acted on them or not, though we now know many priests did – this was acknowledged in Catholic publications – and many bishops did, and evidence of what those bishops did can be seen here and here). These men covered up the scandals. I think the motive may have been a mixture of empathy because of their own struggles, and possibly fear, since they didn't want rank and file Catholics to know how widespread homosexuality was within the Catholic clergy.

Now, maybe you didn't know about these things, David, but you know them now.

We have already discussed the definition of scandal: leading others into sin by our words, actions, and omissions.

It is a sin of scandal to encourage Catholic priests and lay people to believe that the acceptance of legal recognition for homosexual domestic partnerships is compatible with authentic, orthodox Catholicism. It is a sin of scandal to permit priests to put articles in their bulletin suggesting that "gay priests" are a gift to the Church. It is a sin of scandal to claim that priests with strong homosexual tendencies who share these feelings with others in a way that indicates that they feel these tendencies are more or less a permanent part of their psychosexual make-up are not "defective in any way". It is scandalous and wrong to tell faithful Catholics that a man (Rod Stephens) who has left the priesthood to continue to pursue his special relationship with another man and who has publicly supported women's "ordination" and been quoted in the San Diego Union Tribune while attending a celebration supporting the "ordination" of a woman is "a Catholic in good standing". Especially after admitting that you are aware of this priest's public support for women's ordination. Bishop Tod David Brown has done all of these things and much more.

Whatever sins you may think me guilty of, I can assure you that Bishop Brown's actions, especially the ones I have described here, have given more scandal (including, perhaps, tempting people to rash judgment) than anything you suspect me or others here of having given.

It is my hope that your love of the truth will inspire you to rebuke Bishop Brown as much, if not more, than you have attempted to rebuke anyone posting here.

Fr. Heath, I continue to respect and admire you and I don't disagree with your assertion that we need to be fair to Bishop Brown, even though Bishop Brown has been unfair to so many of us.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Atlanta Catholic]

Dear Father Heath,

That is fair enough. The phrase digging seems to imply snooping. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Catholics in the Diocese have been forced to accept and swallow... sex abuse scandals, bad theology and liturgical nonsense for years. Why have so many good Catholic parents abandoned the thought of placing their children into Catholic schools? I will tell you why. After years of giving the benefit of the doubt to Catholic instructors, parents were forced to see the handwriting on the wall. There has been poor leadership in the Diocese for years. Catholics barely know their faith. One parishioner in this Diocese had enough when a teacher told her fourth grader that Mary was not a Virgin. (also not uncommon)This took place at the same parish as the referee priest. This happened years ago and things have not changed much. I am not surprised because Catholics for years have been saying...Stop judging and have stood silent. Mother Angelica was not silent and Rome backed her up. We can never judge souls but we absolutely have to judge behavior. Our very souls depend on this when it comes to following a bad shepherd off the cliff of "ignorance is bliss" and I'll get to heaven because I was quiet when I saw evil.

Mass attendance is at an all time low. Yet you have priests such as Father Bruce Patterson humiliating the faithful by appearing in a referee outfit under his vestments at Mass. Then removing his vestments to give a show in the referee suit. He thinks this is clever. Does he realize that this is sacrilegious I'm sorry to report this but a bunch of guys who watched this said.."How Gay" and dramatic. How does this help? Yes, this was last Sunday. He said he is searching for a new way to get the laity involved. How about trying this novel idea. Be an obedient example to the vocation you have chosen and if you will build His House they will come. His new idea is to have an altar server or someone on the altar blow a whistle on the priest if his sermon is over ten minutes. What do you think of the effect that this will have on respect for the priesthood? Father Bruce then proceeded to defend Bishop Brown against the spin of the media, in the referee outfit on the altar. I thought he was very foolish to ask the parishioners if they listened to the Ken and John show. He went on to criticize Ken and John. I call that begging to be attacked by a radio show. The family who heard Father Patterson, could not get over a Pastor, defending a Bishop in hot water, looking like a fool in this referee outfit on the altar. Father Heath, that is not digging. These are flagrant abuses allowed by Bishop Tod Brown. The faithful are fed up with the anything goes but don't be uncharitable when dung is placed right under your nose.

How respectful of the sacred priesthhod for people to cheer and laugh when the priest delivering the very important homily that might save their immortal soul, gets a whistle blown on him. Well, the faithful are blowing the whistle on these priests who are showing such disrespect for their own precious vocation, yet wonder how can they have the laity "get more involved".(Let alone wonder why there are so few new vocations).
I am quite sure that there will be "Father Bruce" is wonderful posts within the day. Father Fred Bailey ( The Barney Priest) is wonderful, everyone is wonderful. The question is, why are they not faithful to the Magisterium regarding the Teachings, the Liturgy and boundaries with children? Parents do not have the luxury of giving the benifit of the doubt anymore. I know victims. Their lives have been destroyed. There are brother priests who continue to hurt and deflate the Church because they don't seem to understand why they are there in the first place. We don't want buds! We want men who unselfishly serve God, not their ego in a referee suit. I hope a traveling parishioner never blows a whistle on your homily Father Heath. Have you noticed that at any given Mass the people are not in unity with many things that they have picked up along the way. Some are good, some are goofy. I'm just letting you know the etiology if you start to experience a handful of people blowing a whistle while you are giving your homily. How demeaning to the value of the priesthood. This is tantamount to saying..."Times up Father Chris! You've bored us long enough, lets get to the fun stuff". If the whistle idea from Father Bruce takes off but no one speaks against it because it is judging, then Mass will be full of whistle blowers before long. How sad!

Thank you for being a good priest. I sense that you understand the frustration and anger that the faithful have experienced.
I also have heard that you are a good priest. Keep up the good work. I wish that cloning wasn't evil. Then we could have "Obedient and Wonderful" priests doing what God intended them to do. I think it is a good thing for you to be aware of things. I actually feel it is a blessing to know what the truth is. No one is questioning your fidelity. I am sorry but after the scandals the faithful should not just sit back with their hands folded. St. Teresa of Avila even said the same. Contrary to false compassion beliefs, or others who tout "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil"....
Pope Gregory said, "BETTER FOR SCANDALS TO ARISE THAN THE TRUTH BE SURPRESSED"!

[Patrick]

Satan is having a field day with the weaknesses revealed in our leaders, and in the infighting we engage in while trying to figure out who's at fault.

We know who is at fault!

Would I have done any better under the circumstances? I hope so, but who knows?

Oh, please, the old sister who taught my eighth grade class could have done better. It isn't a situation requiring the wisdom of Solomon. If a pervert priest is molesting parishioners, you should do whatever is necessary to put an end to it and report crimes to the police.

this age is no different than any other--only now, we have a willing media and anti-Catholic society to report to the whole world just how weak we can be.

The media and popular culture are anti-Catholic. But, we can't blame our problems on them. We have ourselves to blame! We have allowed homosexual creeps and modernists to infiltrate the hierarchy Church. Then, we wring our hands and worry that if we object someone might accuse us of being hateful, judgemental or a scandalmonger.

[David Corcoran (Consanescerion)]

(To Fr. Chris: You’re very welcome. De nada. :) I had no idea you now have a blog of your own! I should stop by your parish & say hello.)

Pax Christi vobiscum my brother in Christ Thomistic,

We are not in disagreement, really. You are right that repeating unproven gossip or leaping to conclusions is detraction and rash judgment, not scandal. I used the wrong word, my apologies. I'm a victim of the horrible religious instruction avialable right after Vatican 2, and still sometimes draw a blank on using exact, basic terms despite my self-education since. But I sure know how to make felt banners and collages!

I know most of the situations you spoke of regarding Bishop Brown. I have condemned his actions supporting domestic partnership and not disciplining Fr. Rod Stevens, who was once my associate pastor. I am well aware that the common child abuse pattern in the Church is ephebophilia, not pedophilia, and it has largely been perpetrated by males with same-sex-attraction, not pedophiles. I think Bishop Brown has earned the dubious title, “The Hammer of Homophobes” as Diogenes of CWNews called another bishop. I have nothing provable to add to your charges. Some of your other information was unknown to me.

Though some of my family lives in OC; I now live in the San Diego Diocese. A letter to the Papal Nuncio or some dicastery in the Vatican has more effect from a parishioner within the diocese.

Thank you for informing myself and others in such great detail. I am not saying to anyone "close your eyes to wrongs within the Church". I urge righteous anger, properly expressed at abuses. But remember who is our real enemy and that we must be careful to hand him no victories from our rash judgements.

Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." 2 Tim. 4:2 (NASB)

"Love means to love that which is unlovable; or it is no virtue at all."
Gilbert K. Chesterton

Let all see Christ in us, oh Lord.
God love you,

[Atlanta Catholic]

Patrick,

Brother in Christ! Very well stated! What a wise old sister. I also had a few wise old sisters who taught the faith. The imprint that they leave is invaluable. I was asked by these sisters to clean the convent chapel in the eigth grade. I saw it as a special privilege to even clean the floors. These sisters did not scare me, they inspired me. They taught me the faith. They taught me right from wrong. They have always reminded me of a terrific nurse who does her job while you have been hospitalized. Once you have met one, you will not forget their care. When a nurse follow the physician's orders and doublechecks to see if the treatment is given correctly, the patient benefits. Many excellent sisters taught the Catholic faith as the Divine Physician intended. I do believe that we will see these orders flourish again. In the meantime we can do our part and compliment the sacrifices that good priests and sisters made to pass on the faith. A very well respected priest, who responded to my e-mail regarding the crisis in the Church here in Orange said, "Time is on our side"!

[Chris]

I will go on record as witnessing Fr. Bruce Patterson in his jersey. He came on just before the final blessing and was not wearing vestments. I couldn't and still can't make up my mind if it were an exercise in spindoctoring or an honest attempt at trying to correct misinformation.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I have substantial information either way.

[anonymous]

Chris,
I also saw Fr. Bruce just before the final blessing - at the 5pm Mass on Sunday.

The whistleblowing occurred at another Mass the same weekend

[Atlanta Catholic]

I also was aware that one of the priests had a whistle blown on him for going over the alloted sermon time. I don't think this requires a "benefit of the doubt" response.

What excuse or response could ever convince Pope Benedict that this was O.K.? This is exactly why he wrote his book, "The Spirit of the Liturgy". This requires the Vatican to blow the whistle on shepherds who are using the sanctuary for every goofy novelty that enters their heads.

Would Father Bruce Patterson blow the whistle on the Holy Father if his homily was over a certain time? I would hope that some Swiss gaurds would bop him on the head and stuff his whistle. I guess that sounds uncharitible though.

This is wrong, but many Catholics will probably enjoy this. They won't enjoy it out of malice. They will enjoy it because they do not know any better..... thanks to the poor examples that have led them to think that this is acceptable.

"My people suffer for lack of knowledge!"

Parishioners from St. Bonaventure who do know better should attempt to charitably correct Father Patterson. The sheep need to shepherd the Pastor to greener behavior that does not diminish the priesthood. Maybe they will have success if they let Father Bruce know that it is wrong to turn the Mass into a circus act.

[kinoc]

Did anyone see the Dana Parsons column in the Saturday (9/22) LATimes re Msgr. Urell? Interesting in light of current events. Too bad the internet and blogs didn't exist 25 years ago.

[kinoc]

I forgot to mention above that I think it is good that Fr. Heath is reading this blog. I particularly thought of him when I read the above article. I wonder if Fr. Urell had had the advantage of the internet 25 years ago how things might have been different for him today.

Fr. Heath, I understand your keeping an open mind while assessing the info presented here. I'm glad you are open to hearing what concerned Catholics think about what is going on in their church.

As a recently returned Catholic, after many many years absence, I also am having my eyes opened to all the things going on underneath the surface of what you see in the papers and in the church bulletins.

[dan]

Question: How long did you live with Father McKiernan?

Bishop Brown: We were together about -- about roughly seven years.

Together? I've had roommates before, and I have one now. I've never described sharing a house or an apartment with a roommate as being "together" with anyone.

Just curious, What word would you have used? 'Together' seems like an okay word to me. Do monks live 'together' - did the early Christians live 'together?' What is a better - less 'gay' word in your opinion?

[Aaron]

Someone answer this question definitively, and then we can close down the discussion: Is Bishop Brown a practicing homosexual? Why won't anyone deny it? Why all the ambiguity?

[Thomistic]

Dan,

Together isn't the problem. The problem is "we were together". I probably wouldn't have used the word together at all, but not out of thinking it sounded "gay" as you put it (homosexual is a more appropriate term – "gay" is a euphemism borne of a word gutted of its original meaning and repeated ad nauseum by activists seeking to avoid the "sexual" in homosexual, which reminds people that it's not ultimately about love and happiness, as homosexuals what people to believe, but rather, about the acceptance of acts of sodomy – acts which are wholly unnatural, prone to spread disease, and portrayed by Sacred Scripture, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as abominable acts of grave depravity).

I've never referred to my rooming situations with "we were" or "we are" together. I just mention that I rent a room in someone's house or that my friend and I share the rent on an apartment.

I suppose, if I were Bishop Brown, after begging God for forgiveness for leading countless souls into error, publicly admitting that I was wrong about nearly every personal interpretation of Catholic theology, whether moral, liturgical, or otherwise, I ever uttered (which would not, of course, include repeating Church teaching word for word), and asking the Holy Father's permission to resign a post I was clearly never, ever qualified to hold, I would have described my living situation by saying that Fr. McKiernan lived in my house for seven years.

Aaron,

I don't think that sort of behavior takes practice.

I can't say "definitively" what Bishop Brown does or doesn't do with respect to his promise of celibacy.

I can say that Bishop Brown is tolerant of homosexual relationships, which is forbidden by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that homosexual activity may never be tolerated under any circumstances. Bishop Brown has supported and defended homosexual "unions" in general and in particular cases.

Now, I can think of only three reasons for doing so.

1) Profound ignorance (and perhaps stupidity) mixed with an appalling lack of prudence and the desire to appear tolerant, progressive, and politically correct in an increasingly ignorant and Godless culture. This is the most charitable reason I can think of, and I would be more than happy to have everyone admit at least that, since it is manifestly obvious. His sympathies for the lifestyle (even while publicly mouthing Church teaching) are well documented, and homosexuality is the only moral issue that I'm aware of where Bishop Brown has demonstrated repeated and special concern, even to the point of expressing support for such a lifestyle in a way that violates Church teaching.

2) Bishop Brown may have strong homosexual tendencies. He may or may not have acted on them in the past or currently act upon them. Nevertheless, all the conditions set forth in reason number one still hold true.

3) Bishop Brown has a homosexual friend or relative and this has thoroughly clouded his judgment. Nevertheless, all the conditions set forth in reason number one still hold true.

That being said, if you, or anyone else, can get concrete evidence about Bishop Brown's personal behavior, especially photo or video evidence, I'll be more than happy to share it with the world.

Pax,

Thomistic