Sunday, March 18, 2018

Cardinal Cupich Removes Pastor of St. John Cantius After Allegations of "Improper Conduct"

Fr. Frank Phillips

As some of you know, I am a parishioner at St. John Cantius. I was confirmed there nine years ago. Julie and I were subsequently married there, and she, in turn, entered the Church soon after. Our four children were baptized there. I'm going to use most of this post to try to relate only the facts as I know and can remember them, partly from the various conversations and discussions I've had with parishioners and others over the last 24 hours. A few of my own personal opinions will be made clear at the end of the post.
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for our transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways.... Wis. 2:1, 12-22.
- From the last public reading by Father Frank Phillips, at Mass on Friday morning.
This weekend, in a letter read out during 5:00 Mass on Saturday and repeated during the 7:30, 9:00, 11:00 and 12:30 Masses on Sunday, the Archdiocese of Chicago announced that Fr. Frank Phillips had been removed as Pastor of St. John Cantius and as Superior of the Order that he founded, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.

The letter stated that Fr. Phillips had been credibly accused of improper relationships with an adult male or males.

Fr. Phillips is currently staying at an undisclosed location, pending an investigation of the complaints by the Congregation of the Resurrection, of which Fr. Phillips is a member.

Representatives of the Archdiocese subsequently added more to the story in unofficial talks after Mass: The allegations involve three adult males, they refer to relatively recent actions (in the last five years), and the complaints do not involve any criminal or civil charges. They first came to light in November. Someone suggested (perhaps one of the representatives) that the investigation was expected to take six months.

The Archbishop appointed Rev. Scott Thelander, a member of the Canons Regular who had recently been Pastor at St. Frances Cabrini Church in Springfield, to become "Interim Administrator" of the Parish and, I assume, the Order. Fr. Trenton Rauck of St. John Cantius will replace him in Springfield.

On Saturday, St. John Cantius posted this letter on its website, and subsequently read it out after the letter from the Archdiocese at each of the four Masses on Sunday.



The letter has since been taken down, it is unclear why or on whose direction, and replaced by this short note:



At Mass yesterday and today, there was great shock and grief. One of the younger priests was seen to be crying.

Everyone is solidly supportive of Fr. Phillips. There is a huge amount of love and affection for him here, both on a personal level and for everything he has done to build up the parish from near-death to being one of the country's leading centers for Catholic Tradition and the Traditional Latin Mass, as well as becoming a Chicago cultural landmark in its own right. As far as I know, there has never been even an atom of rumor here of inappropriate conduct or homosexuality.

(I just reread the above paragraph, and it doesn't put it quite right. If you are not a parishioner at Cantius, it would be perhaps difficult to understand the level of love and respect we all have for Fr. Phillips. For a man always so busy with so many tasks, it's remarkable how many people feel so close to him.)   

There was also much anger, directed, as might be expected, at Cardinal Cupich, who has long been perceived as hostile to this Traditionalist parish. At the Saturday evening Mass, a man loudly departed his pew and stormed into the vestibule, leaving the heavy doors swinging behind him. At the Sunday 7:30 Mass, a woman interrupted the reading of the first letter, shouting that the whole thing was a setup.

On the other hand, in their personal conduct after Mass towards the representatives from the Archdiocese, most parishioners were polite, at least in the interactions that I witnessed. And on the St. John Cantius Facebook page (administered by a layperson) and in other social media, the call has gone out for restraint. So, among other things, threads or comments that might be construed, even remotely, as being critical of or hostile to Cardinal Cupich or the Archdiocese have been taken down or deleted. And so on.

After the 11:00 and 12:30 Masses, I asked the representatives why Fr. Phillips had been "removed" as opposed to "suspended," especially considering that only complaints had been officially acknowledged and the investigation by the Resurrectionists had not yet begun. As I remember it, I received two different answers from the first spokesman and a third answer from the second spokesman:
  1. The complaints and/or charges were very grave.
  2. Cardinal Cupich made the decision (that's all the representative knew).
  3. This is standard procedure.
While a recent or active "inappropriate relationship" with a parishioner or parishioners would certainly be a serious matter and potential grounds for removal, classifying, pre-investigation, a complaint or even set of complaints not involving minors and not involving a breach of criminal or civil law as very grave, strikes one as a bit odd. And removal at this stage is not standard procedure, either as presented in the Archdiocese Handbook on Personnel or considered against the background of other recent cases in Chicago.

As far as I know, and according to the Handbook as I read it, even a priest accused of criminal molestation of a child is generally placed on administrative leave, at least pending the results of an investigation.

I have to say that, to me, the overall tone of the official statements as well as the unofficial talk, is that whatever the results of the investigation, Fr. Phillips will not be coming back.  

While the precise nature of the charges is still unclear, it's fair to say that most parishioners have a difficult time believing that Fr. Phillips could be anything but innocent. Even on the logical possibility that there might be at least partial truth to the charges (and I suspect the hardheaded among us have considered the possibility), and whatever might or might not be said in public, many are viewing this as Cupich's long-anticipated attempt to assert control over the Canons Regular and St. John Cantius itself with the eventual goal of shutting us down.

The Canons still have no official independent status and all members could be reassigned by the Archdiocese at any time, or the Canons Regular broken up or dissolved.

Whatever Cupich's actual desires or intentions, I always believed we would be protected by the fact that an obvious move against Cantius would be perceived badly by the Chicago community - again, partly keeping in mind our status as a cultural institution. Forgive me, but I never thought it would happen this way. Now it seems like it was the most (or the only) logical way for it to happen.

******

A round the clock Rosary Chain for Fr. Phillips is being organized at:

https://signup.com/client/invitation2/secure/2264290/false#/invitation

In addition, I believe a public prayer is being organized outside of Holy Name Cathedral. I'll post an update when I have the details.

41 comments:

  1. Yes, it was the only way to do it.

    If we look at the track record, we see baseless charges of a sexual nature or coverup in all the post-FFI actions.

    Just a reminder:

    Bishop Finn - a complete set up
    Bishop Oliveri - seminarians caught in town
    Bishop Livieres+ - hired dodgy cleric

    And that was just the ordinaries...

    So this fits right into the strategy to invert the VII vice of homophelia and homosexuality among clergy onto the Traditional orders.

    While Bishop Borros is safe and sound...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the new Cardinal from Chicago is the perfect man for the job of diverting attention from the festering public relations wound that is slowing the advance of progress of the paradigm shift.

      Forward! Urgently, forward! Crush, from the top down, all who oppose progress.

      Delete
    2. In the fullness of time....???? Let's not get egg on our face here.At the same time pray for the Priest, the Church and all concerned

      Delete
    3. This action of the current Prelates is typical of the new orientation of the dark man-made church being built and foisted upon the naive and unwary Vat. II followers. The Smoke of Satan has become a smouldering bonfire in the Church and it is raging wildly these days.Let us true followers of Jesus keep the Faith complete and untainted.God bless all of good will.

      Delete
  2. invert the VII ?
    MARCH 19, 2018
    Today is the 19th day and sedevacantists and traditionalists have not noted that Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j made a mistake in the question and answer session of the Press Conference on Placuit Deo.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/today-is-19th-day-and-sedevcantists-and.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And pray tell Lionel, what does this comment have to do with the article?

      Delete
    2. Is there any Catholic blog thread Lionel can't derail with a boilerplate Feeneyite broadside?

      Delete
  3. The question is what SJC parishioners would do next once the parish and the Canons go on the chopping block?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, God willing, that won't happen. But if it does, the Institute of Christ the King is on the South side. And the SSPX is in Oak Park. I've been to both.

      Delete
    2. None of this is God’s will.

      Delete
    3. Missy: Yeah, of course none of this is God's will. Who said it was?

      Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "God willing", in regards to praying for God's help?

      Delete
    4. Way past any of God’s willing as well.

      Delete
  4. Chicago, as a "catholic" city, is no friend to Traditional Catholicism. Cardinal Cupich is perfect for that place. I am reminded of the fourth sorrowful mystery and the intention for it: patient suffering throughout trials and tribulations. As orthodox Catholics, this is another cross for us to bear. If we can, especially at this time of the liturgical year, let us remember the Passion of our Lord and pray for Fr. Phillips.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You realize that, in the wake of the Boston scandal, the protocols for dealing with accusations are exactly what has been done with Fr. Phillips, here? And you have to admit, that given the pro-gay civil law, an act wouldn't have to be illegal in order to be opposed to Church teaching and requirements.

    So since there can't be a double standard based on popularity or traditionalism . . . if there are authentic accusations, this is how they're handled.

    It's entirely possible that Fr. Phillips' best and most important work begins NOW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cupich invites homosexualist perv priest Fr. James Martin, S.J. to speak at Holy Name Cathedral in the same week as this? HYPOCRISY. What about the open homosexuality and extremist feminism (aka Protestantism) at the Marxist fever swamp at Old St. Pat's? Cardinal Cupich's recent speaking engagement at the Glencoe synagogue was an exhibition of Cupich's rejection of Catholicism, the Gospel words of Christ about salvation and morals, etc.

      We all know that Cupich is a supporter of homosexualism, so I think this does fall under the category of selective bias. Nonetheless, man-on-man sex is considered deep unnatural sin, so Fr. James Martin shouldn't be promoted by Cupich, and if allegations against Fr. Phillips are as true then both Martin and Phillips and Fr. Greg Boyle (pro-gay sex) types should all be suppressed.

      Delete
  6. I don't know if these allegations are true or not. I also find them quite hard to believe, but I have seen so many things in the Church over the years...

    But lurking behind this is the unbidden thought I am sure most of us have had: If the tripwire is a priest who has ever been "credibly accused of improper relationships with an adult male or males," the Archdiocese of Chicago would struggle to staff all of its parishes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed!! There seem to be many more active homosexuals in the priesthood than straight.

      Delete
    2. Sadly, because the AmBishops created a process that was, first of all, fixated on covering their own ass (They do not care about the children) any priest is immediately removed which make hi guilty in the eyes of his local city/community.

      Are the Orthodox Jews allowed to adjudicate the accusations leveled against their own rabbis?

      AmBishops have created this mess and they are making the innocent pay

      The Church is following its own rules here, as “delineated in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (USCCB 2002, 2005, 2011).”[7] In compliance with those rules, Bishop Rhoades “directed that these allegations be forwarded to the Indiana civil authorities and the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”[8]
      Instead of asking why the Church has internalized the commands of its oppressors and imposed upon itself rules that apply to no other institution in this country, the local bishop concluded his statement with the usual pious boilerplate: “Bishop Rhoades asks everyone to please pray for all parties involved, especially for those that have come forward, as well as Fr. Seculoff, our priests, parishioners and all the faithful during these painful and difficult days.”[9]
      There will never be a trial because the Church has already convicted one of its own in the court of public opinion.


      http://www.culturewars.com/2014/Allen%20Double%20Standard%202.htm

      Delete
  7. While it's clear that StJC was counter-cultural and that your Cardinal is definitely not a 'white hat,' I am concerned by the plural number used in the Archdiocesan announcement. If it were "one" accuser--maybe even "two"--I'd be inclined to think that it was a setup. Three or more? Not so easy.

    We will pray.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  8. He moved against a traditional parish in the diocese of western South Dakota over Easter weekend in 2012. You can still read about it on the local paper’s website, the Rapid City Journal, which did several articles about it, so this doesn’t surprise me at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Resurrection Order in Chicago is not known to be particularly "friendly" to Fr. Phillips. Pray that they will be swift and just.

    ReplyDelete
  10. We never leave Jesus on account Judas.

    ReplyDelete
  11. At some point, action not words.

    "Mercy" is a one way street to the truly reprobate. Vicious punishment to the traditional faithful.

    Action cannot be avoided. Decision is required of us all. Now. Today. From the top down, it is coming for us all.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is true and there are times when meekness and obedience are serious sin when they pave the way for evil. These times call for warriors not gardeners.

      Delete
  12. Thank you for posting the additional information.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm an absolute outsider, but since when did homosexual activity become verboten for Catholic priests? I'm exceedingly glad to hear it, but when did this occur? Certainly the NY diocese should be informed, apparently, they have plenty of super active homosexual priests. If this is the standard, we demand to know why NY doesn't apply the same standard? Cardinal Dolan should be asked that, if it's true that homosexual behavior amongst men is not allowed? I am very curious about what may be a huge double standard.
    If these turn out to be unfounded charges, conveniently leveled at a priest in order to remove him, that would be the most egregious abuse of power imaginable, and Cardinal Cupich has much to answer for.
    The charges better be true, and serious. The people have a right to know.

    ReplyDelete
  14. “Fr.” James Martin at HNC Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  15. People need to scrutinize Cardinal Cupich's (Chicago) past with a fine-tooth comb.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Since Cupich is so well known for promoting the progressive policy of Francis, including towards homosexuals, then this action is a contradiction of that policy, and a transparent double standard against traditionalist clergy accused of homosexuality. Even if Fr. Philipps should be found guilty, despite all evidence to the contrary, his strict suspension by Cupich is, by logical deduction, a tacit attack on St. John Cantius, and objectively what it stands for: the traditional Faith.

    We recently saw similar actions in Tulsa, with the removal of two Latin Mass religious communities, without explicit reason, under the new Francis-appointed Bishop (or Cupich-appointed), which clearly was in part because of prejudice towards traditionalists.

    The end game? Exonerate Fr. Philipps swiftly, while showing public evidence of this herisiarch's attempts to suppress traditionalism, once and for all. There is so much scandal in that diocese, going back to the days Frs.Kunz (rip) and Fiore (rip) reportedly went after rings of Satanic, homosexual, pedophile priests in the Chicago diocese (having Windswept house flashbacks), that Catholics there should be able to out the Clerical Cabal there once at for all. And hopefully Cupich himself, who is leading the Francis heresy/schism here in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well well surely priests who practice homosexuality are all part of the new paradigm in th Catholic Church, so if indeed these accusations are true...what is the Cardinal's problem???

    It is been made patently clear by this pontificate that lgbtq etc relationships are not necessarily outside the the schema of acceptability. In the Vatican itself and in diocese such as New York we have seen numerous incidents of homosexual activity without any sanction for the clerics involved. Furthermore the darling of the Jesuits, Fr Martin is allowed to promote the practice with the tacit support of the Jesuits and even the Vatican. So again I ask what is the problem?..... Perhaps St JCan.congregation should ask the Cardinal? Perhaps the media should? Perhaps the 'gay lobby' should ask why this priest, if the allegations are true, is being persecuted for acts that are perfectly legal and clearly so in tune with the modernisation of the Church?

    Perhaps you could ask Cupich why we as a merciful Church are mistreating this priest in this way and not reaching out to him 'pastorally ' and accompanying him ?

    Also it might be useful to inform Cupich on the definition of the word 'Calumny'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sodomy is an obvious sin and scandal. The trick for Catholic leaders who practice it and advocate for it is to divert the scandal of it onto their chaste opponents while expanding its acceptance in the public sphere.

      Jujitsu: Using the weight and force of the enemy against him.

      They have attached their own crimes, to those most opposed to their crimes. That is an amazing sleight of hand.

      Delete
  18. I think we would do well to remember history. It is always the Catholic faithful that saves the Church, not the other way around. Forgetting this has led us to where we are today in the Church. We would still be in the Inquisitions with these passive attitudes! God expects the warriors to rise up for Truth, Justice and Love! Cupich needs correction. And a lot of it!

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Joseph Ostermeir: This is a fatalistic statement but other than those parishioners at Cantius, Institute of Christ the King, and the SSPX Chapel, this Archdiocese of millions of Catholics is pretty much full up of "catholics in name only" and Novus Ordo Catholics who are happy-clappy with the way things are....Protestantized-Catholics at best. Sad but true. At least that's my impression. I wouldn't count on any formal or large pushback against any of this. Lord help us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn’t yours fatalistic statement Elizabeth? To give up before you even try? Perhaps the reason there are so many CINO’s is because there’s no pushback and we grant tacit approval by our silence. If you never hear anything different how is one to know? Maybe it even makes us complicit and accessories. I believe it does. The only tragedy this life holds is to not have been a saint and I don’t believe we love people into hell. And there should be no expectations of results. Plant the seeds.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, Missy, as I stated right at the beginning.....I was making a fatalistic statement. I was making an observation as a Chicago Catholic, that's all, hon. You can get off your high horse now.

      Delete
    3. I misread I thought you were referring to Johns statement. And a bit of pride, no? I’m saying you can do something. I really don’t think that is a high horse statement but one that is uncomfortable. As your reaction reflects. No need to get huffy.

      Delete
    4. Elizabeth's first sentence was not clear who was being fatalistic, me or her, but I figured it out. But I did enjoy the women's spat over yours truly, if you don't mind me saying. :) We laugh lest we cry, I suppose.

      Delete
    5. Joseph and Missy: Aha, I re-read my comment and now see that my original statement was indeed unclear about who was making a fatalistic statement. Oops. I was referring to myself. Sorry.

      Delete
  20. I noticed on twitter (I believe that's where I saw it) that Christine Niles of Church Militant is looking to interview parishioners of St. John Cantius for input. Just an FYI for those of you who are parishioners that would be interested.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I noticed on twitter (I believe that's where I saw it) that Christine Niles of Church Militant is looking to interview parishioners of St. John Cantius for input.


    thanks for the heads up TLM.

    ReplyDelete