Open Letters
Exchanges
Between Rev. Samuel Waters and Msgr. Daniel Sullivan, Vicar for Clergy for the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of
Philadelphia.
The
Exchanges continue with a Letters between Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller,
Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the letters between
Fr. Waters and Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia representing Cardinal Muller, and the letter to
Cardinal Beniamino Stella, Prefect for the
Congregation of Clergy.
This is a
thoughtful and forceful critical reply to Archbishop Charles Charles Chaput's letter of May
20, 2019. What every faithful Catholic
must know is that the process of administrative laicization, without canonical
due process, was instituted by Benedict/Ratzinger as
a means to clear the books of former priests who had abandoned the ministry for
a specified number of years and for whom moral certainty exists that they have
no intention of ever returning. It
cannot be used as it was by Chaput against Fr.
Waters, denying his rights of canonical due process, as a weapon to destroy his
priesthood because he defends Catholic dogma and Catholic immemorial
traditions.
This letter also
re-affirms Fr. Waters' arguments from his letter of April 24, 2019, taken from
Benedict/Ratzinger, that the Faith itself has
canonical rights and, in denying Fr. Waters canonical due process, Chaput also denied the canonical rights of the Faith
itself. The implication of his unjust
treatment of Fr. Waters is far more serious than Chaput
ever expected.
Letter from Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, May 30, 2019
This is canned
unthinking response from Archbishop Charles Chaput. It is the typical reply expected from him,
and apparently and unfortunately is the best he can do, which, he will someday
learn is not good enough.
Reply from Artchbishop Charles Chaput to Fr. Waters' last Letter May 20, 2019
This letter was
written to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia
after Bishop-emeritus Benedict/Ratzinger published
his letter to the bishops of the world offering his unsolicited advice on the
sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.
Benedict/Ratzinger’s advice regarding the
sexual abuse crisis is worthless, however, his comments about the preservation
and protection of the canonical rights of homosexual predators within the
clergy, and, more importantly, his comments about the necessity of protecting
the rights of the faith itself, have a direct bearing upon the nature of the
sin that Archbishop Chaput has committed.
The purpose of this
letter is twofold. Firstly, to remind
Archbishop Chaput of the gross injustice and abuse of
authority by illegally using the administrative process of laicization against
Fr. Samuel Waters and denying his canonical rights entirely which is a grave
sin. And secondly, what is a far graver
sin, denying the right of the faith itself to canonical protection from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which was specifically requested by
Fr. Waters. These rights are afforded to
homosexual predators within the clergy but denied to a priest faithful to the
revealed truth of God and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
Letter from Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, April 24, 2019
This letter was
written to Archbishop Chaput after he was criticized
by his fellow bishops for attempting to impose within his diocese a policy
prohibiting those Catholics living in an objective state of adultery from being
publically admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. The argument offered by Archbishop Chaput appealed to the immutable doctrines of Catholic
faith and the immemorial traditions of the Church. In short, he used the same arguments that
were offered by Fr. Samuel Waters to him to explain and justify his actions in the
defense of Catholic tradition. Fr. Waters
arguments were dismissed by Chaput without any
consideration whatsoever. Fr. Waters was
therefore told by Archbishop Chaput that obedience is
the only virtue the Church recognized and understands. Obviously, Fr. Waters does not expect any
reply from Archbishop Chaput. What could he possibly say?
Letter from Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, November 29, 2016
The occasion of
this letter to Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Prefect for the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, was a press conference by Pope Francis on November
30, 2015, in which the Pope discussed in detail the “disease” of Catholic
“fundamentalism” which afflicts “many Catholics” who believe in “Absolute
Truth.” This formal denial by Pope
Francis of the existence of an “Absolute Truth” that can be known and
communicated to others is the fundamental doctrine of the Novus Ordo Church. You
might say it is the only ‘absolute truth’ they believe in. Cardinal Muller is called upon once again to
either defend the Catholic Faith or condemn it.
Pope Francis says Catholics who believe in “Absolute Truth,” to whom
“God is lacking,” “must be combated” because they are a “bad thing.” This explains the animosity from the dioceses
of Harrisburg and Philadelphia. They
have, like Pope Francis, a problem with “Absolute Truth.”
This
letter is self-explanatory in the facts addressed, but not so in the motive and
method exercised by Cardinal Beniamino Stella,
Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, in union with Archbishop Charles Chaput, the ordinary of Philadelphia. It was sent, as all our letters, by certified
mail. The letter was refused by Cardinal
Stella, but the copy of the letter sent to Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller,
Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was gratefully
accepted.
What
should be understood by every reader is that the non-canonical administrative
process of laicization was only adopted in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI
exclusively as a process to address the status of clerics who had abandoned the
clerical state, usually to marry, thus making it possible for them to return to
the Church. It is impossible to laicize
a priest who is in the active ministry of his priesthood without canonical due
process. It is impossible to laicize a
priest who is actively appealing questions of faith and morals directly to the
definitive judgment of the Holy Father.
This is apparently the reason why the Cardinal Stella refused to accept
the letter from Rev. Fr. Samuel Waters.
This fact of open, malicious, perverse abuse and corruption of legal
rights and due process by Archbishop Charles Chaput
of Philadelphia, with at least the silent cooperation of Cardinal Stella, is a
grave matter that is manifestly incompatible with a state of grace.
This letter from
Fr. Samuel Waters to Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, concerns the failure of Archbishop
J. Augustin DiNoia to
address the matter that was delegated to him by Cardinal Muller. The letter incidentally addresses an
interview given by Archbishop Guido Pozzo of the CDF
in which he publicly says that the only unconditional requirement for members
of the SSPX to be regularized with Rome is the 1989 Profession of Faith. The deficiencies with the 1989 Profession of
Faith are specifically addressed with Cardinal Muller. He again is asked to address the charges of
schism and heresy made by the Diocese of Harrisburg and the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia against Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission and obtain a
definitive declaration regarding the matter of Faith that have been placed
before the Holy Father. Cardinal Muller
is asked to take care of this matter himself, or if he should delegate it to a
subordinate, that he do so to someone else other than Archbishop DiNoia who is clearly negligent in his responsibilities.
This letter was
written by Rev. Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop Charles Chaput
of Philadelphia and copied to Archbishop J. Augustin DiNoia at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in
Rome. The purpose of this letter is to
inform Archbishop Chaput that a certified letter sent
by his functionary, Msgr. Daniel Sullivan, the Vicar for Clergy, was being
refused and returned to its sender because the sender no longer exercises any
competency regarding Fr. Waters.
Archbishop Chaput is directed to address any
further communication regarding Fr. Waters to Archbishop DiNoia
who now has the moral responsibility to bring the doctrinal and liturgical
questions raised by Fr. Waters to the Holy Father for a definitive
judgment.
Letter from Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia March 31, 2014
Fr. Samuel Water's
reply to J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Congregation of the Doctrine of the
Faith. The Letter addresses Archbishop
Di Noia's two points in detail. The
first point explains that our appeal to the CDF is not a few days too late,
rather the reply from the CDF to the Mission's Letters is 10 years too
late. The second point exposes the
"1989 Profession of Faith" with its novel addendum as a violation of
the First Commandment. The letter concludes
with repeating again our demand from the CDF to obtain an infallible judgment
from the Holy Father on the doctrinal and liturgical positions of Ss. Peter
& Paul Roman Catholic Mission.
Reply from the Congregation
of the Doctrine of the Faith to Fr. Samuel Waters written by Archbishop J.
Augustine Di Noia, O.P. The Letter makes
two points: Firstly, the appeal of the "Decree of Excommunication"
declared by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia arrived too late,
therefore, tough luck; Secondly, the
enclosure of the 1989 Profession of Faith with the documents from the CDF that
support the novel article of "faith" that Catholics must submit the
'will and the mind' to the "Authentic Magisterium."
The Arguments
Against the "Decree of Excommunication" declared by Archbishop
Charles Chaput of Philadelphia submitted by Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop
Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith.
The cover letter
from Fr. Samuel Waters to Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in which he submits his arguments
against the malicious and vindictive "Decree of Excommunication"
pronounced by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and petitions directly
to the Holy Father for his definitive judgment, anchored upon the attribute of
infallibility which Jesus Christ has endowed His Church, on the liturgical,
doctrinal, canonical, and moral grounds that justify the actions of Fr.
Waters.
A letter to Fr.
Samuel Waters from Msgr. Daniel Sullivan at the direction of Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia in
which the Archbishop declares his vindictive intention to begin "the process
to seek... (Fr. Waters') dismissal from the clerical state." Why? Because Fr. Waters is faithful to
Catholic doctrine and the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic
Church. Msgr. Sullivan, whose
predecessor in the office he now holds, Msgr. William Lynn, is currently in
prison after his conviction for covering up for known pederasts. Consider, compare and contrast how Msgr. Lynn
and the homosexual pederast priests he aided and abetted in the archdiocese of
Philadelphia have been canonically treated over the last thirty years?
A letter from Fr.
Samuel Waters to Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia in which he offers a
more detailed objection to Archbishop Chaput’s “Decree.” This letter addresses in a brief summation
the canonical, moral, doctrinal and liturgical problems with the action taken
by the Archbishop.
A letter from
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia to Fr. Samuel Waters where he offers
a minor objection to Fr. Waters’ last letter and requests that a reply should
be made to him before any appeal regarding the Archbishop’s opinion is referred
to Rome.
A letter to the Archbishop of Philadelphia
regarding his "decree." The
letter is harsh but the rebuke is well deserved. When this "decree" is seen in the
actual context of its immoral and uncanonical denial of due process, done by a
hierarchy preaching "religious liberty" and "ecumenism" who
have overseen and protected homosexual predations of Catholic adolescent boys
by numerous clerics and their facilitators for more than a generation, none of
which have been denied due process or ever suffered any latae sententiae penalty, it is clear what kind of men we are
dealing with.
This letter is a brief reply from Msgr.
Daniel Sullivan to Fr. Samuel Waters' July 25 letter which includes the
"decree" of Archbishop Charles Chaput declaring his canonical
opinion, without judicial hearing, that a latae
sententiae penalty has been incurred.
The purpose of canon law is to discover truth. That is why due process was demanded by Fr.
Waters and it is also the reason why due process was denied. What is clear from this exchange is that the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia is only interested in the raw exercise of blind
ecclesiastical power, indifferent to truth or justice, that is ideologically
driven.
This letter of Fr. Samuel Waters explains
to Msgr. Daniel Sullivan the nature of latae
sententiae penalties, the Catholic moral principle of a true and certain
conscience, and reaffirms some of the
doctrinal and liturgical first principles that form the foundation in the
formation of our conscience.
Msgr. Daniel Sullivan again writes a
threatening letter demanding compliance with demands on pain of incurring Latae Sententiae excommunication. The letter does not address a single
substantive claim of Fr. Samuel Waters or Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic
Mission. Fr. Sullivan uses worn out
arguments that have been thoroughly refuted by many traditional Catholic for
many, many years.
Fr. Samuel Waters' reply to Msgr. Daniel
Sullivan denying the charge of schism and explaining the doctrinal, liturgical,
moral, and canonical grounds that constitute necessary attributes of our
Catholic Faith and justify the violation of particular canonical norms. Msgr. Sullivan is invited to address these
claims directly.
Msgr. Daniel J. Sullivan, Vicar for Clergy
for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, demanding that our pastor, Fr. Samuel
Waters stop helping Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission or face the
threat of "excommunication."
The reason offered by Fr. Sullivan is because the Mission he charges is
"not in full communion with the Holy See," that is, he makes a charge
of schism without evidence. This is nothing
but parroting the same calumny bureaucratic functionaries from the Diocese of
Harrisburg have made for years.