On The Persecution Of Catholic Priests By Their Own Superiors.

God bless you, Father Rodriguez!

God bless you, Father Rodriguez!



… there appears to me to be a paradigm growing regarding Summorum Pontificum/Universae Ecclesiae and the TLM, that while it may be permitted by bishops/powers that be/Pope for a priest “raised,” if you will, in the Novus Ordo environment, to offer the TLM on occasion, it most certainly will not be permitted for such priests to offer the TLM exclusively.

This interesting reflections appeared on the always interesting “Blog for Dallas Area Catholics”.

On personal reflection, it seems to me that this cannot be a uniform key of reading the events. I say this because of the following reflections:

1. To my knowledge, the FFI offered many Masses in the Novus Ordo before the Great Persecution started. They were, though, becoming increasingly more critical of V II. There is also, from what I have read around, an interesting episode of the FFI allowing the Tridentine Mass in a church of theirs, just metres past the boundary of the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio; a move evidently aimed at making the Traditional Latin Mass as convenient as possible to the faithful of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, then led by Archbishop Pothead himself.

2. Father Rodriguez was, as far as I know, already in disgrace by his own bishop because of his energetic defence of marriage against the tide of sexual perversion currently sweeping the West. It is difficult for me not to imagine that this is what made him a privileged target of his bishop’s attentions, and caused his transfer to a remote parish in the first place.

3. Bishop Lovieres Plano, another victim of this Pontiff, and Bishop Oliveri of Albenga-Imperia, possibly the next one,  also had most certainly most masses in their dioceses celebrated in the Novus Ordo. In these cases, though, they both run extremely successful seminaries, which were certainly a Catholic menace for the likes of Bergoglio. 


It seems to me that there is no single common denominator behind these episodes of persecution of good Catholic priest, other than this: that their being good Catholic priests is seen as a nuisance, a menace or an open challenge to the Church of Nice. The ways in which this can happen are multiform, but they can all traced back to one common denominator: Catholicism taken seriously.

If we want to understand what is happening, we must see the events in the right perspective: whilst the usual “feel-good” V II mentality was always an obstacle to sound Catholicism, Francis is, with his secular Neo-Paganism, its sworn enemy.  He will, therefore, attack sound Catholicism whenever he thinks he can do so safely, perhaps abandoning caution when – as in the case of the FFI – personal animosity add to the already evident motive of attacking sound Catholics.

This cascades, then, in a sort of open season on orthodox priests. Cardinal Dolan can get rid of Father Wright under Francis in a way that would not have been possible under Benedict. The climate has changed. The bishops read the new temperature, and act accordingly.

Father Rodriguez is, no doubt, not the last to be targeted. Excuses and pretexts of various kind will never be in any shortage, and there will never be any shortage of dumbos ready to believe whatever accusation is merely hinted to.

This is the way of this pontificate. There will be no scarcity of bishops adopting the same methods.


Posted on November 16, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. And there is no reason for the SSPX to trust anything coming from the Vatican with such external evidence that the current Vatican hierarchy does not approve of anything “Traditional”, the sole exception being the “traditional” complete, unadulterated and unapologetic approvals of the current reigning Pope and Curia – no questions asked.

  2. Already the hierarchies are acting against orthodox TLM/NOM hybrid parishes and breaking them up with strategic postings.

  3. Hello, Mundabor:

    It’s been years since we last talked. I wish you the very best and miss our conversations. Concerning Fr Rodriguez, I share your umbrage and will continue to do so until the whole story behind his persecution comes out; but that’s the point isn’t it – the whole story hasn’t come out. We’ve been mauled before by wolves in sheep’s clothing (cf: Marcial Maciel and John Corapi), and in light of that, it behoves us to keep our counsel for the time being.

    On a lighter note, I mentioned on another blog, that Fr R strikes me as an “unflinchingly, unapologetically opinionated and unambiguous rear-guard prescriptivist.” I could actually have been talking about you, couldn’t I?

    • Hello John Henry, nice to hear from you again!

      As to Father Rodriguez, I must disagree. The fact that some people proved bad neighbours does not mean we must mistrust every neighbour. As I write this, the “accusations” against Father Rodriguez appear to be utter crap; so no, no “progressive” bishop will make me “keep my counsel for the time being” just by smearing a good priest.

      On the contrary, a good and saintly priest remains in my book a good and saintly priest until the contrary is proven.


  4. Mundabor, have you watched this video? Utter heresy and vulgarity, Buffon Pope chatters with protestants http://caminante-wanderer.blogspot.com.ar/2014/11/otro-pellizco.html

    • “Resulta increíble, en el sentido más propio del término, que este hombre sea papa. Francamente, no se puede creer; la vulgaridad y la indignidad con la que se mueve y con la habla muestra cabalmente quién es el personaje.”

      I think I understand what this means, and approve wholeheartedly.


  5. “The fact that some people proved bad neighbours does not mean we must mistrust every neighbour.”

    Perfectly put, Mundabor, and please note that I said that I continue to share your umbrage concerning Fr R’s treatment. It’s just that part of my admiration for him is held in reserve. It’s not like I (or you, for that matter) actually know him outside of the internet.

    • No, but the Internet, to me, is enough until prove to the contrary.

      Take Padre Pio.

      One travels to Pietrelcina and listens to one or two of his homilies. He is delighted. His friend says to him “take heed; in the end, you only know what you and other hear of this man”. Yes, well, true. But this is exactly the point.

      I personally do not hold back any part, not even 1%, of my admiration for this man. Actually, my admiration has increased.

      Of course, I form my opinion based on known facts. But I do not change my opinion based on what facts I might, one day, know.

      It seems to me that whenever our admiration for an admirable man is put, and even if only on the back of our mind, “on hold”, then his enemies have reached an objective already, and an already important one: they have undermined our trust in this man.

      This is, generally, the main aim of slander: to let something unsavoury stick.



  6. Thanks, Lynda, but I was faster! 😉

    Blog post ready, and scheduled for tomorrow 😉


  7. Well said response to John Henry, Mundy:+) The people who know Fr. Michael personally and for many years will attest to his sanctity. He is a gift to us in this dark time:+) God bless you~

%d bloggers like this: