This following video contains the official and final statement of the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Seminary in Boston, Kentucky regarding Ambrose Moran.
In this post, I expressed great dissatisfaction with the first communication of Fr. Pfeiffer regarding his putting a stop to using Ambrose Moran’s episcopal services. Since then, a new communication was posted on January 23, 2019 that included the first communication with additional material. Let us more closely examine some parts of this new communication.
“After a long investigation, it is concluded that while the Archbishop is a valid Bishop….”
How did Fr. Pfeiffer come to this conclusion with certainty? The truth is that, even if we grant that Ambrose Moran was consecrated by schismatic bishops, we cannot have a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop without the competent Church authorities thoroughly investigating his case. See here and here for more information regarding this matter. Ahh, but according to Fr. Pfeiffer, Ambrose Moran was consecrated a bishop in 1976 by Bishop Hryhorij, who was Catholic at the time, at the Holy Protection Cathedral. There were even, again according to Fr. Pfeiffer, other Catholic bishops who acted as co-consecrators at the same ceremony.
“….there are nonetheless unexplained anomalies related to his case which have not been able to be verified as true since evidence points in multiple directions in these anomalies. Ample time has been given to clear up these anomalies, but the results are inconclusive. Proper sufficient ecclesiastical authentication is therefore lacking. Hence, the Archbishop cannot be used in his episcopal powers for Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Seminary.”
Hold on. Fr. Pfeiffer started off asserting that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. Then he proceeds with putting into question that which he had just asserted as true. Well, is he a valid bishop or not? If he is a valid bishop consecrated by Catholic bishops, then what’s the problem? After all, it cannot be a show stopper that he is a liar because Fr. Pfeiffer, as attested by others, has stated that even if Ambrose Moran was found to have lied about being consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Slipyj, that would not stop him from using his ministerial services. On the other hand, if he is not a valid bishop, then what are these anomalies that put into question his validity? I think it is only fair that Fr. Pfeiffer brings forth these anomalies after spending so much time in sermons, conferences, and private discussions asserting that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop and even criticizing those who questioned this assertion.
The communication in the video then proceeds with reiterating the first communication followed by thanksgiving to those who have helped investigate the Ambrose Moran case and then making an apology. I found the bolded word (emphasis mine) peculiar in the apology:
“As for myself, I am sorry for any of my failings in this matter as well. I do not wish to turn down the gifts of Our Lady or to move forward rashly, hence the slow movement forward in this case.”
Should that not read “did“? I am fairly certain that the communication would have been proofread over and over again before publication. That the disassociation from Ambrose Moran is final and no longer open for debate is stated in the communication in the video, but it was not stated in the same communication posted on The Catacombs Forum. Hmm. Strange.
After reading this final communication, the question is:
Is this communication sufficient to support again the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church and Seminary for those who withdrew support?
I do not believe so. Here are my reasons:
1. I do not believe that this is a sincere retraction. Up until a couple of weeks ago, Fr. Pfeiffer was moving in the direction to further use Ambrose Moran for his episcopal services. I say “further” because remember that he used Ambrose Moran to conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson in July 2018. Fr. Pfeiffer heated up his promotion and defence of Ambrose Moran over the last few months despite the fact that priests and faithful, including mission coordinators, were trying to convince him otherwise. It was only when Fr. Hewko made his threat to leave OLMC did Fr. Pfeiffer stop. Furthermore, the first communication, which was awful, was all that Fr. Pfeiffer was originally going to issue. It was only after being pressed did he issue the second communication.
2. The conditions that caused Fr. Pfeiffer to bring Ambrose Moran back from the dead have not gone away. Remember that in November 2015 OLMC made a declaration that it would not associate with Ambrose Moran. Many of us came back after leaving at that time on the trust and hope that Ambrose Moran was gone for good. Fr. Pfeiffer broke our trust by, without prior announcement, having Ambrose Moran conditionally ordain Fr. Poisson. Now, the same as in 2015, Fr. Pfeiffer needs a bishop for his apostolate and seminary. The situation will only get more desperate from here forward. All Fr. Hewko did was place a stopgap measure in the process. Therefore, I don’t believe Ambrose Moran is gone for good. And as the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
3. Faced with the facts as was Mr. Gregory Taylor, who was commissioned by Fr. Pfeiffer himself to investigate the Ambrose Moran case, the only prudent outcome is to call Ambrose Moran what he is, a liar. Instead, Fr. Pfeiffer uses weak terms like “inconclusive”. The reality is that Fr. Pfeiffer should denounce Ambrose Moran for the liar he is and to reject his ministerial services even if it can be proven with a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop. We do not need shady characters like Ambrose Moran in the Resistance.
4. In addition to denouncing Ambrose Moran, there should be some form of reparation made on the part of OLMC. First of all, to use Ambrose Moran for the conditional ordination of Fr. Poisson is, objectively speaking, an act of sacrilege because there is not a moral certitude that Ambrose Moran is a valid bishop. And even if there was a moral certitude that he is a valid bishop, the same conditional ordination would still be morally reprehensible, if not also an act of sacrilege, because Ambrose Moran to this day refuses to publicly admit and repent of his public schismatic past. Secondly, OLMC has done much damage to the unity of the Resistance with this Ambrose Moran affair (and for the second time). Next to Bishop Williamson’s public statement about the moral acceptability of actively attending the Novus Ordo Mass under certain circumstances, I would place the Ambrose Moran affair second, perhaps even a close second, in the detrimental effect it has had on the unity of the Resistance. Thirdly, Fr. Pfeiffer should not state that “this disassociation is final and not open for debate” if by this he means that he will no longer discuss the reasons for the sudden disassociation. After ramming Ambrose Moran down our throats, causing so much havoc, and criticizing those who provided opposition, elaborating on the “anomalies” seems to be a matter of justice.
Let us continue to keep watch and pray!