TRANSCRIPT

It doesn't take much to know about the big scandals in the Church, especially surrounding the whole gay thing in the clergy. Those scandals, because of the big names involved, break out of the Church bubble and into the mainstream press. Scandals like McCarrick and his career of sexual assault, the Pennsylvania grand jury report, Cdl. Dolan bestowing his blessing on the gay marriage advocates in the St. Patrick's Day Parade, for example. Those are big names, big events — and generate big headlines. However, those are not the business-as-usual cases we here at Church Militant are made aware of frequently.

While we obviously cover those big stories, there are quite a few that slip past the Marxist media, except for a brief mention locally. For example, right here in Detroit, the recently appointed auxiliary bishop, Paul Fitzpatrick Russell, has been named in a lawsuit with pretty damning allegations. Those allegations claim that when he was a priest in the archdiocese of Boston, he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy more than two dozen times while stationed at St. Mary of the Sacred Heart parish in Lynn, Massachusetts. But as Abp. Allen Vigneron and his corrupt chancery prove time and again, there is a massive double standard always at play.

When the allegations against Bp. Russell came out the other day, Vigneron rushed to his defense and permitted Russell to defend himself by issuing a denial through the proven-liar communications director, Ned McGrath. McGrath said, "Abp. Russell is shocked and saddened by the claims that have been made." He added, "He states that the allegations are totally without merit and that his conscience is perfectly clear."

Seems perfectly fine. Allow an accused to go on the record and defend or deny the charges. But contrast that with the way Vigneron trashed Fr. Eduard Perrone a couple of summers back when charges of sexual assault were leveled against him. The same archdiocese, under the same duplicitous archbishop and the same corrupt chancery staff, denied their own priest the opportunity to deny the charges or defend himself.

In fact, in a glaring display of malice, it was later proven that Vigneron's hit man, Msgr. Michael Bugarin had actually lied, manufactured and fabricated the entire case against Perrone. Bugarin demanded an alleged victim accuse Perrone of sodomy against him, a charge the alleged victim flat out denied repeatedly. Yet even knowing the charges were invented against him, Perrone was still denied the ability to respond publicly and deny the allegations.

A press release was issued with no denial from Perrone because it was not permitted. The assumption people made was that he was guilty because, after all, why wouldn't an innocent man deny the charges? What Vigneron did not allow to be told is that Perrone was never given the opportunity to deny them. In the end, Vigneron's malice was defeated in Rome, a rare victory for a priest over his bishop. On top of that, he even won a $125,000 settlement against the cop who cooperated with the archdiocese to defame him. But that humiliation infuriated the vindictive Vigneron, who refused to allow himself to be defeated.

He brought up local ecclesiastical charges of "disobedience" against Perrone, who was civilly suing Msgr. Bugarin for defamation. He had ordered Perrone to drop the suit, and, for a long while, Perrone refused, thus bringing on the phony charge of disobedience — as though a priest has no right to defend his good name in the face of known manufactured charges. Eventually, Perrone complied, worn down by Vigneron and his corrupt chancery, in exchange for being able to offer Mass publicly again, with permission, of course, each time.

So a priest, Fr. Paul Russell — raised to the level of bishop and brought to Detroit to presumably take over for Vigneron when he departs next year — gets to defend himself. But a good priest with no record of anything, fighting what the entire chancery knew were phony charges, gets no opportunity to defend himself. And who says there's no corruption in the Church?