Rorate Caeli

The case against Archbishop Favalora

Our friend Eric Giunta has penned a long article (with numerous links) on the case against Archbishop John Favalora of Miami.

Visitors to this blog are invited to read the article and to decide for themselves.

Since nothing is more powerful than prayer, readers are also invited to pray for a new archbishop or at least a coadjutor who is holy, orthodox and faithful to the Magisterium and the liturgical tradition.


19 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:29 AM

    Yes I heard about this subculture in the Catholic Church in Florida 9years ago!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Peter1:04 PM

    KYRIE ELEISON!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is the Miami Archdiocese opening a Pandora's box?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:42 PM

    It somehow does not seem right that a Prince of the Church, A descendant of the Apostles, the Episcopal leader of one of the largest dioceses in America, a prelate whose only job is to save souls,
    should be dressed like Dan-O in Hawaii 50.

    Maybe its just me though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. WOW! Some will never learn.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A
    SHEPHERD’S
    SUIT

    Down the street
    Schools closed
    The new Mass
    Fruit.

    Up the street
    Latin Mass
    On abuses they stay
    Mute.

    We have Mass
    Latin daily
    Schools abound
    Truths root…

    For the good of the whole,
    These Shepherds die
    To save all
    For they wear Christ’s suit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:59 PM

    The pic compels me to ask...is this an Archbishop?

    Or an Archie-Bunker?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When the Vatican has completed their assesment of American female religous perhaps they should start checking the operations of American diocese going from chancery to chancery, oh I mean pastoral center to pastoral center. Time to clean house. Could this be some of the filth in the Church Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of in the conclave?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous5:01 AM

    When the Vatican has completed their assesment of American female religous perhaps they should start checking the operations of American diocese going from chancery to chancery

    See this is the problem with the Vatican. It trusts the bishops too much. Weak Popes + overly trusting your bishops = disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:04 AM

    The "filth" in the Church is everything that came from Vatican II, and the last 40+ years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous5:15 PM

    Hasn't anyone here read Randy Engel's book "Rite of Sodomy"? If not, it's one of the best investments you'll ever make.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous7:00 PM

    While the stories presented here, if true, are horrifying, I still find it disturbing that the author would suggest that we should ask for the removal of this archbishop when we have no direct experience of him and can only base our judgment of the archbishop on the words of the author. It is just unprofessional and even unethical to condemn a person based on hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous7:39 PM

    Anon said, "It is just unprofessional and even unethical to condemn a person based on hearsay."

    You are showing that you never bothered to open the links and read for yourself. The proofs lay within.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous3:36 AM

    No, there is no actual proof of anything in the article.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:46 AM

    Or rather, I should say, there is no proof of anything except the actual financial settlement with the impregnanted stripper.

    Everything else is based on hearsay or inference. It just shows poor logic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:43 PM

    Anonymous said to Anonymous, "You are showing that you never bothered to open the links and read for yourself. The proofs lay within."

    I stand corrected. There is no direct proof stated in the article or the links.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous5:01 PM

    Anon 3:36 and 3:46

    You want proof? Read "Rite of Sodomy." Endnotes galore that will keep you busy for a very long time in providing you with all of the proof you will ever need.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous6:46 PM

    As the author of the Favalora article, I vigorously protest the assertion that the links I provided contain no direct proof of what I have alleged.

    For starters, direct proof is NOT wanting for the theological dissent which pervades the diocese. That is rather well-documented, by Matt Abbott and Life Site News.

    The Archdiocese's cover-ups and pay-offs of priestly sexual abuse is also well-documented therein.

    For very obvious reasons, the most egregious of the allegations (widespread clerical sodomy) are evidenced solely by witness testimony, from priests and laymen in the know.

    The Holy See was provided with more specific names and details, and such will continue to be provided should the Holy See ever request them anew.

    Aggrieved Catholics of the Miami Archdiocese have their own proofs (by way of direct or indirect witness) which they can present to the Nuncio in their correspondences. For concerned Catholics outside the Archdiocese, the well-documented dissent and sexual abuse is sufficient to warrant expressions of concern to the Nunciature.

    Stay tuned for follow-up articles which will explore the allegations in greater detail.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous4:40 AM

    The filth existed in the clergy before Vatican II. In 1846, Our Lady said, at La Salette: "the priests have become cesspools of impurity."
    http://www.catholicplanet.com/catholic/melanie.htm

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!