since 2011. Here’s the portion as it was reported by the Latin Times.
San Juan de Puerto Rico's archbishop has been asked twice by the Vatican to step down from the head of the diocese in at least two occasions, local newspaper Vocero reports.
Roberto González Nieves answered in February to allegations made against him in the Vatican, especially the remarks signed by cardinal Marc Ouellet and his secretary, Lorenzo Baldisseri, in a meeting in Rome in December of last year.
"In such meeting, I was told I had to leave the diocese in San Juan and take another position within the Catholic church. The unfairness, prosecution, difamation can never be sources for the renounce of a bishop, or its fair cause. I want to make it clear that I would never leave the diocese of San Juan when there is no legitimate reason," he worte in a letter dated of Febrary 20.Link to Latin Times…
Interesting case, especially when you compare it with the case archbishop Bezak. Double standards?
+Bezak didn't go quietly either.
Just hilarious: the Vatican "asked" him, twice, to resign. Unbelievable.
Earth to Vatican: don't "ask" him to leave, ORDER him to leave.
Tancred, you are right. But the key difference is, that when he refused to go, the Vatican action was swift and severed. He was simply replaced. Also, to this day the faithful don't know why was archbishop Bezak removed. That's what I meant by double standards.
Kreuznet said they had dirt on him.
Yes Tancred, I know what Bezak was accused of, but it seems it was a dirty disinformation campaign. He challenged those statements and I didn't find any evidence of his supposed support for homosexuals or anything like that. I am not defending archbishop Bezak. I just wanted to point out, that the Vatican (it seems) really applies double standards. The faithful in Slovakia (where there is a relatively strong Orthodox presence) even expressed an opinion the Vatican wouldn't act in the same way with any Western bishop. These double standards can potentially lead the faithful away from Rome and that is VERY dangerous. I am not defending Bezak, I am just saying the faithful have a RIGHT to know why was a certain bishop removed.
I saw a video showing him in civilian clothes with a Jazz combo in church. He surely wasn't orthodox, and they apparently had photos of him going in and out of bath houses frequented by homosexuals.
And several "Western" bishops have been asked to resign.
Really??? I didn't see any photos of him going in and out from gay sauna... Could you provide links please? As far as I know, there were no such pictures published in Slovakian or foreign media.
Was he even Catholic? The Bsihops' conference had presented photos of him going to bathhouses. He also promoted aodomites and priests living in concubinage to persons in authority. He was often in jeans. Right in the story above. I'm actually astonished anyone would defend him. He's clearly anotherultra-Liberal Bishop.
- There are no photos of Bezak in any inappropriate situation
- His opinions are rather conservative and he is far away from liberalism. His opinions regarding gays, contraception, priesthood etc are as much in line with official Vatican as they can be. This was never even rumoured to be doubted by Vatican.
- The most probable cause of his troubles is his discovery of shady finance flows handled by his predecessor Sokol and Vatican Bank; Sokol was a guy selected by Communist party and defender Slovak Fascist regime 1938-45. His finance master, helping to funnel money from property sale to Sokol's private Vatican accounts, was an ex-KGB man. There were strange checks coming from a non-existing US estate reminding the practices of money launderers.
He’s gone now. Good riddance to him. He was a horrible Bishop. I just showed you that news article. They have pictures of him leaving bathhouses where sodomites congregation. How much more explicit do I have to be?
"The Bishops Congregation presented information -- and photographs --, where the Archbishop visited "gyms, saunas, baths and public showers" with dubious persons."
No, that never ever happened, nothing was presented and the reason for his dismissal is completely different. So it's not that you should be more explicit but you should rely on much better sources of information in building your opinion. Then you would do not tell us these huge stupidities like "he was a horrible bishop".
If you want to believe a disobedient Old gay bathhouse bishop is worthy of priestly ministry , that's your business.
"disobedient Old gay bathhouse bishop"? You are obviously posting from a lunatic asylum.
BTW, Czech Cardinal Duka revealed that "Bezak was not dismissed for any moral delict". So if you don't know about the case first-hand, than at least do not troll here without any evidence.
Bishops who host folk music in the sanctuary in the presence of God in the tabernacle should be hung. Just my opinion of course.
I would also suggest that anyone who believes that such a vile poof as this Bishop is I'm any way a Catholic, is the delusional one.
Kreuznet says he was seen leaving sodomitical bathouses. They're impeccable, while you on the other hand are eager for reasons I don't care to speculate upon, to ignore the obvious evidence that this man has no business as a Catholic Bishop.
Bullshit. Once again, there is NO evidence, only the defamation campaign initiated by the circles related to previous archbishop Sokol. In your opinion Sokol, who fathered a child and is highly suspected of financial mismanagement, if not money laundering, was more worthy of priestly ministry?
If you believe Kreuznet more than Cardinal Duka and other reliable sources then it clearly indicated the value and weight of your opininons.
And I am not "eager", I just have more than enough information first-hand and second-hand.
First, he was not the only bishop to allow modern music in church.
You would hang people for folk music, my poor? And you call yourself Catholic or Christian? I suppose you are the kind of person who would hang even Jesus. What about Jesus talking to a Samaritan woman? That was perceived almost as sexual assault in that society. Or would you call Jesus "old gay" as his disciple was lying close to the breast of Jesus?
I don't think you are a Catholic, you don't even know the difference between Bishops' Congregation and Bishops conference.
Kreuznet is reliable, you're a hysterical and anonymous complainer with an agenda.
Watch your language.
Yes indeed, Rome dismisses bishops for trivial reasons all the time.
In fact, the Bishop's Congregation had photos of him at "public showers" and roaming around without his clerics. http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/07/bishops-congress-had-goods-on-dismissed.html?m=1
He also has problems with the church's teaching on divorce, premarital infidelity and euthanasia.
Well, surely not for trivial reasons in this case. This case is related to hundreds of millions euros that were managed by the previous archbishop. His circles organized writing hundreds of defaming letters to Rome (e. g. one person wrote 42 letters) and have very powerful friends in the Curia so they managed to get control of the money once again.
Those "non-trivial reasons" even haven't been published. And Bezak, against canonical law, does not have a decree of removal with reasons for dismissal.
I am as anonymous as you are, or is Tancred your surname (sorry, if it is)? This discussion is not worth registering one of the required accounts.
Kreuznet may be a good source but it's not God's Word, or is it? Do you think Kreuznet is always right and Cardinal Duka is a liar?
If you have no other evidence than a Kreuznet article, you have nothing to say.
He wouldn't be the first sodomite to mismanage his money, but you confuse the irreverent folk concert with a plain clothes "bishop". I'm guessing you don't have a problem with euthanasia, women priests or Protestant understandings of the priesthood, either.
I have a track record, you're just a disgruntled Old Liberal destroyer.
Stop pasting the same link, is Kreuznet your only and infallible source of truth? No, they had no photos. You repeatedly has only the same argument of little value. You do not have any evidence that there were these problems and you will not have a single one in the future.
No, he had no problems with church's teaching on divorce, premarital infidelity and euthanasia. These are all lies. He was a long-time professor of moral theology, do you think he would be nominated if there was the slightest suspicion that he is a gay or that he does not conform with church's teachings? There was no problem with him until he discovered some strange financial flows and asked Vatican for instructions how to deal with it.
No, you are wrong, he is not a sodomite. No, you are wrong, He did not mismanage his money - it was his predecessor. So quite the opposite, and I know a person, a very conservative one, from a religious order who helped Bezak to recovery the archdiocese finance so do not give these uninformed statements.
And you are also very wrongly guessing my views regarding the topics you mentioned.
Yes, you have a record about hanging people for folk music.
You have nothing to say - no arguments, only insults and nonsense labeling based on nothing except your morbid imagination and Kreuznet articles. So no more wasting time with you.
Crappy folk or Jazz music doesn't belong in a sanctuary, and if you don't see such irreverence as a serious moral failing, we have nothing more to talk about.
I could care less what +++Duka says.
Ill keep posting the link because it contains factual information about an Old Liberal Bishop who got burned.
That was not crappy music LOL
What music had ancient Christians in their sanctuaries? Gregorian chorals? We live in 20th century. Or only organ is a holy instrument? Where do you read it? In the Gospels? Yes, we have nothing to talk about.
"I could care less what +++Duka says." That says everything. But Kreuznet is surely full of fgctual information.
No, that article simply, and unfortunately, does not contain truthful factual information. And it is funny that when you run out of arguments you keep repeating them like a parrot, combined with labeling people about whom you know literally nothing.
The sanctuary is not a place for a grandstanding, evil, Old Liberal Bishop to profane the Blessed Sacrament.
"21st century" :-)
Them post a refutation of the information besides an off the cuff, and frankly untrue statement by Duka.
You must be Marc Ouellet disguised for a discussion troll if you can afford to say something like "frankly untrue statement by Duka". Because Duka surely knows very well the true reasons. He is the superior of the Czech bishop Baxant who accomplished the apostolic visitation to Trnava.
Apparently, your bathhouse Bishop is being lied about by the Congregation of Bishops.
They had photographic evidence and many reports.
Post a Comment