Category Archives: Clergy Abuse

Taking Up One’s Cross vs. a Building Taking Up One’s Name

Speaking “from the fullness of heart” Bishop Matthiesen defended his “serious mistake” writing, “Waldow once confessed to me in the presence of priest witness that he had bad-mouthed (me) ever since I was ordained the bishop, and that he is an alcoholic.” In the same “modus operandi” Bishop Zurek defending his own “serious mistake” wrote, “This is a clear indication that this one of “the
few” has no intention to stop causing division in the Body of Christ. His line is
quite clear; he only wants division and disunity.” What were their hearts full of?

Speaking “From the Fullness of the Heart”

Speaking “from the fullness of heart” Bishop Matthiesen defended his “serious mistake” writing, “Waldow once confessed to me in the presence of priest witness that he had bad-mouthed (me) ever since I was ordained the bishop, and that he is an alcoholic.” In the same “modus operandi” Bishop Zurek defending his own “serious mistake” wrote, “This is a clear indication that this one of “the
few” has no intention to stop causing division in the Body of Christ. His line is
quite clear; he only wants division and disunity.” What were their hearts full of?

Blindly Moving Forward “Into a Pit”

Bishop Matthiesen judged Monsignor Waldow as a “congenital liar” in order to defend the “serious mistake”. Years later Bishop Zurek became a “fully trained” disciple of Matthiesen and used the same “modus operandi” in defending his own “serious mistake”.

Slapping Faces and Taking Cloaks

Twenty years later Bishop Zurek allows Bishop Matthiesen to tell the Amarillo Diocese that a convicted clergy sexual abuser is the true victim of our “serious mistake”.