Brother Andre Marie's Reply

"One side included untrue, misleading, and defamatory statements by us"
What statements?

"The show aired some other bald inaccuracies, such as the description of a layman as the "founder" of our community"
Who or whom are the founders of the community?

full story at www.catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-50.html

For More Information on Father Feeney

For more information on Father Feeney, who the members of SBC are devout followers, go to:

www.fatherfeeney.org

check out FAQs and the link to SBC Richmond

"I am NO Historian"-Louis Villarrubia, aka Brother Andre Marie

When asked questions about the Jews and the Holocaust on the Channel 5 Chronicle show SBC Prior and Prefect Brother Andre
Marie did not answer the questions, instead he stated that "I am no historian".

http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com

Comments of the Chronicle TV Show-"Richmond a Town Divided"

Please use this posting to make comments on the Chronicle piece. In the future the video will be posted to this site so those that did not see it will be able to access it from this blog.

Thursday, October 25th: Richmond a Town Divided

Mary Richardson will be doing a report on "Richmond: A Town Divided"
Thursday, October 25th
BOSTON CHRONICLE
CHANNEL 5
730PM
Note: This is Boston Chronicle channel 5 NOT NH Chronicle channel 9

www.thebostonchannel.com/chronicle/14376818/detail.html/

ZBA Decides to Revisit SBC Expansion Plans

By a 4-1 vote Monday night the Richmond ZBA decided to revisit their decision to approve 3 of the conditions the SBC appealed to the ZBA. The next public meeting on 2 of the 3 conditions will be held at 730 PM on November 14th at the Vet's Hall in Richmond.

Request for Rehearing-Saint Benedict's Center

A group of Richmond residents represented by Attorney John Bisson has requested a rehearing of the decision of the ZBA on granting the SBC's request for a special exception. The matter was before the ZBA on August 29,2007 as an appeal of the decision of the Planning Board granting a site plan application subject to 30 conditions. The SBC challenged 2 of the Planning Board's conditions of approval:

1) Applicant must obtain from the ZBA a special exception for a house of worship in a residential zone as well as a determination as to whether or not a school is an allowed accessory use to this house of worship. If a school is not an allowed accessory use to an approved house of worship, the applicant must get a variance from the ZBA.
2)The site Plan Application and review was predicated on the lot merger proposed by the Applicant. The lot merger must be executed and signed by the Applicant before any recording at the Registry of Deeds as part of the Site Plan approval.

At the hearing, the Applicant conceded for what appears to be the first time that "there probably never was a Variance or Special Exception." The Planning Board submitted its view of the matter in a letter dated Aug 29, 2007. As set forth in the letter, the Planning Board asserted that the Applicant continued use of the site and its ability to add 10,000 sq ft school building should be resolved by the ZBA. The Applicant's position appears to now be that its use is a preexisting nonconforming use beyond any review of the ZBA.

Following a public hearing, the Board adjourned the meeting for a private discussion with counsel. The Board then returned and determined that the applicant "does not need a special exception because we all knew it was there". In addition, the Board concluded that a "religious school is an allowable accessory use to the SBC's house of worship". Finally, the Board concluded that the lot merger was required by the Planning Board not because of the ordinance. Rather, the PB approved the condition. as it had been submitted by the applicant.

The letter, which is available as public record at the Richmond Town Hall goes on as follows:

"We respectfully disagree with the ZBA's decision and request that the Board rehear the matter. Generally, a nonconforming use is a preexisting use of land that is permitted to continue after the enactment of a zoning ordinance which prohibits the use. Nonconforming uses may be expanded, where the expansion is a natural activity, closely related to the manner in which a piece of property is used at the time of the enactment of the ordinance creating the nonconforming use. However, enlargement or expansion may not be substantial and may not render premises or property proportionally less adequate.

As a vested right, the nonconforming use may be passed on to subsequent title holders. However, the creation of a nonconforming use depends upon the configuration of specific facts at a certain point in time; therefore, in order to determine how much a nonconforming use may be expanded or changed, the facts existing when the nonconforming use was created control. The Board must also consider the extent to which the challenged use reflects the nature and purpose of the prevailing nonconforming use, whether the challenged use is merely a different manner of using the original nonconforming use or whether it constitutes a different use, and whether the challenged use will have a substantially different impact upon the neighborhood.

An accessory use is not the principal use of the porperty, but rather a use occasioned by the principal use and subordinate to it. The rule of accessory use is a response to the impossibility of providing expressly by zoning ordinance for every possible lawful use. An accessory use is incidental to a permitted prinicipal use.

In this matter, the Zoning Board's conclusion that no approval for the existing, principal use is required 'because we all knew it was there' is plainly insufficient to allow this matter to proceed. The applicant maintained throughout this process that its predecessor must have received the necessary approvals at some point in 1989. Only at this last hearing did the Applicant finallyacknowledge that it received no approval. Thus, at best, what is there is a nonconforming use.

Thus, the proper question for the Zoning Board was whether the proposed 10,000 square foot building on a significantly different parcel of residentially zoned real estate should be permitted as an accessory use. In order to make that conclusion, the Board must examine both the nature and intensity of the proposed use. The Board must also consider the facts existing when the nonconforming use was created. By definitiion, a use that is far greater than the principal use cannot be an accessory use.

We respectfully contend that a rehearing is warranted in this case. This rehearing request is submitted to exhaust administrative remedies and preserve all rights of appeal."

The Richmond ZBA is meeting on this matter tonight, at 7:00PM at Veterans' Hall, Old Homestead Highway Richmond NH

Who's Who at Pope's Corner-Update

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary - SBC
location : 95 Fay Martin Rd
Richmond, NH 03470
Incorporators: Fakhri and Mary Maluf, Janet MacIssac, Laurence Koenig, John Wassamer, Christopher Boss

General Council : Robert Carbone, aka Br. John Marie Vianney MICM tert

Superior: Fakhri Maluf, aka Br Francis MICM , married to Mary Healey (Maluf) aka Sr. Mary Bernadette (former Mother Superior)

Officers of the Third Order:
Prefect: Louis Villarrubia, aka Br. Andre Marie MICM tert
Prior: Louis Villarrubia, aka Br. Andre Marie MICM tert prior Prior 1997-2007 Doug Bersaw, aka Br. Anthony Mary MICM tert
Director of Education: Fakhri Maluf, aka Br. Francis MICM
Membership Director: Bob Wolfe, aka Br. Paul Marie MICM tert
National Director: Bob Carbone, aka Br. John Marie Vianney MICM tert
Richmond Director: Dave Bryan, aka Br. Joseph Mary MICM tert

Immaculate Heart of Mary School
location: 95 Fay Martin Rd


Institute for Catholic Dogma
location: 140 Tulley Brook Rd
President: Robert Hickson
Vice President: Doug Bersaw, aka Br. Anthony Mary MICM tert

Loreto Press
Location: 139 Tulley Brook Road
President: Doug Bersaw, aka Br. Anthony Mary MICM tert

St Augustine Institute
140 Tulley Brook Rd
Coordinator: Fakhri Maluf, aka Brother Francis MICM
Residents: Brian and Julie McCann

Blessed Sacrament Community
location: 100+ acres subdivision between Fay Martin and Tully Brook Roads
Owner: Doug Bersaw, aka. Brother Anthony Mary MICM tert

Misc: Louis Villarrubia , aka Br Andre Marie, MICM tert, is the son of Eleonore Villarrubia (aka Sister Mary Monica) & Wilfred Villarrubia

"Tale of Two Roads-Part III" Richmond Rooster February 1994

"By all accounts the ramifications of a project the size of the Saint Benedict Center/Blessed Sacrament Community, with increased traffic impact on existing town roads, should have been resolved and all legal requirements completed before the first building permit was issued.
To say should have after the fact is quite easy. If all went according to intentions, the access road would have been completed and the "Tale of Two Roads" would never have been written. What could have happened did not. A year into the project the economy went into a recession, the real estate market and building industry collapsed, money was tight, and the planned access road that should have been is now more than two years past its original due date.
With no alternatives, Fay Martin Road bears the full impact of Saint Benedict Center with its school (grades 1-12), dormitory, print shop and church. There have been no significant alterations to the road to accommodate the substantial increase in traffic with counts upwards of 175 cars per day reported by residents of the road. In an interview with the Rooster staff Douglas Bersaw, president of St. Benedict Center, stated " during discussions with the Planning Board it was brought up that maybe some work could be done on Fay Martin Road, either by us or the town, but the neighbors screamed they didn't want any widening".
Bersaw also told the Rooster of telling the Selectboard "I don't know what I want to do. I said you do what you have to do. You know what my situation is. As much as I want to do it I'm incapable. I was sort of at their mercy".
The selectboard is in the process of trying to resolve the matter, The access road agreement with Blessed Sacrament Community has not been fulfilled, the original site plan approval of St. Benedict Center has been departed from without planning board approval, and the case has been brought to legal counsel. The town will have to decide if it wants to pursue the matter legally and take whatever action is necessary to get the roads built.
Whatever decisions are made in this particular case does not resolve the root of the problems which led to the current situation. Coordination and enforcement of site plan approval, building and driveway permits followup, and inspection to oversee development and building plans, all fell victim of time restraints.
In recent correspondence to Attorney William N. Prigge, council for the town, the Selectboard raised the question of whether Richmond has any leverage to force the Blessed Sacrament to construct the road it originally agreed to build. Attny. Prigge responded, "I am not satisfied that the town has the leverage on the site plan issue per se to proceed with court action to try to enforce the road building issue. The Community's agreement (with the town to build the access road) has not been carried out, that does not mean that the agreement can be ignored".
Prigge later refers to an August 10, 1989 telephone conversation with Selectman David Kochman in which they discussed the differences between a bond a mortgage. Prigge writes " at the time David advised that the town would be covered with the agreement and the mortgage since Mr. Bersaw and his organization would need building permits, thus, David was satisfied that the town would be covered on the road issue."
Since that discussion multiple building permits have been issued.
Prigge suggested that District Court action might be possible under a relatively new provision in Chapter 676, but that District Court does not have so-called equity powers of injunction. Only Superior Court can act in this area. "If there was success in the enforcement of the failure to carry out the agreement by the Community in District Court, and the fines were imposed, this would be success of a sort, "wrote Prigge. "However, if the Community has no money to build the road, it may not have any money to pay daily fines, and the end result of getting the road built might not be achieved. On the otherhand, if success were achieved in Superior Court, the ability to come up with more 'creative' relief is available and the town might get some type of relief to construct the road and essentially put a lien on the community property. The 'down' side of Superior Court is that the procedure is usually slower and more expensive, although the ultimate relief, if success is achieved, can be better."
Mr. Bersaw told the Rooster he had no idea the extent of legalities necessary to undertake an endeavor such as Blessed Sacrament/St. Benedict Center. In speaking of the Community's representatives Atty. Prigge wrote "we were dealing with competent knowledgeable individuals who sometimes wanted assistance of counsel and sometimes dealt directly with the citizens involved".
When asked if his plans remain the same Mr. Bersaw replied "there is no question the road is going to be built".
The question to be answered who will build the access road and when?

Richmond Rooster FEBRUARY 1994

A Brief History of the Slaves of Immaculate Heart of Mary and Why Does it Stop in 1988

According to "The Encyclopedia of American Religions"
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary emerged in the 1940's as one of the first groups protesting the growing accommodation of the Roman Catholic Church to liberal ideas, particularly the acceptance of the possibility of salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Leader of the group was Fr. Leonard Feeney (d.1978), a Jesuit priest who had become a popular Catholic writer in the 1930's. Feeney taught at Weston College in Cambridge, MA but made his second headquarters at the Thomas More Bookstore in Harvard Square. The store, opened in 1940 by Mrs. Catherine Goddard Clarke, became a center for Catholic students. With Feeney's help, it grew into a school in its own right, and from its programs new converts were brought into the church, members for religious orders recruited, and numerous lay people educated in Catholic thinking.

Trouble began in the late 1940's when Feeney began to attack the secularism at Harvard. He broadened his attack to include the liberalism of the church. Feeney charged that some were moving away from traditional Catholic position which stated that outside the (Catholic) church there was no salvation. Welded together by Feeney's rhetoric and leadership, the core group of the bookstore school became a committed group of dedicated conservative Catholics. The church moved to quiet Feeney by urging him to take a position at the College of the Holy Cross, but he refused to leave the bookstore. Secretly, a group at the bookstore organized a new religious orde, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pledged to Feeney and his attempts to preserve the church in its purity.

Tension increased when four teachers associated with Feeney, who also taught at Boston College (a Jesuit institution), wrote a letter to the General of the Society of Jesus and accused some of their colleagues of heresy. The college fired the four for promoting intolerance and bigotry. When Feeney defended them, Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing silenced him and then forbade Catholics to associate with the Cambridge Center. The Slaves interpreted Cushing's actions as another blow to traditional Catholic faith.

Following the silencing, Feeney was dismissed from the Society of Jesus and in 1953, excommunicated. His excommunication marks the establishment of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as a group independent of the Roman Catholic Church. They saw themselves as a small remnant still holding to the true faith. The group established a residence compound, purchasing several adjacent homes and erecting a high fence around the property. The school lost its accreditation, which lead to its loss of funding from the post World War II G.I. Bill and its eventual closing. The Slaves made money by publishing a series of popular books on Catholic themes and selling them door-to-door in the Boston area. They generally spent their Sundays in Boston Common defending their position within the heavily Catholic community.

In 1958 the Slaves moved from Cambridge to a farm near Still River. An ascetic lifestyle became predominant and eventually all of the adults accedpted a vow of celibacy. Children. which made up half of the community's membership, were raised collectively.

After a period of relative quite, the community went through a series of changes that ended its life as a separted community. In 1974, Feeney led 29 men and women of the community back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Then in 1988, the 14 remaining sisters of the group were formally received back into communion and the order regularized. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary began a new life as an order recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

The history ends there. This is the same time Doug Bersaw bought land in Richmond NH and established the Blessed Sacrament Community off of Fay Martin Road. Then the SBC of Richmond was established. This group is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Does anyone know why they left Still River and came to Richmond?

New Weekly Feature: The Apple Does Not Fall Far From the Tree

This old saying applies perfectly to the relationship between SBC (apple) and its founder, Father Leonard Feeney (tree). What follows will be the beginning of a walk through Feeney's publication "The Point".
Let us begin with some background: one must go to
http:/www.fatherfeeney.org/point/index.html to get an outline of articles in "The Point"
You will notice that immediately you are introduced to the collection with a blatant anti-semitic statement. It reads:"essential to the understanding of our chaotic times is knowledge that the Jewish race constitutes a united anti-Christian bloc within Christian society, and is working for the overthrow of that society by every means at its disposal." There were 81 issues of "The Point". 43 issues had the words Jew, Jewish, or Rabbi in the title. Each of these issues was anti-semitic in nature.

Here are partial summaries from the first two issues: In the first issue, February 1952, Feeney pokes fun at Unitarians this way: "Lacking system, even its morals, meeting-house Christianity was bound to have an explosion of pride somewhere in its ranks, and it had one about a hundred years ago in the State of Massachusetts, by way of an eccentric doctrine known as Unitarianism. The Unitarians, many of whom were men of abstemious habits and great wealth finding the Christianity they were experiencing too complex to be a reflection of God, delved into Deism and discovered a God too fastidious to become man." In the second issue of March 1952, Feeney takes his first anti-semitic jab in the context of ridiculing Roman Catholic Maryknoll Priest, Father Joseph Keller, founder of the Christophers. Note Feeney's typical satire in his reference to Father Keller's "unlimited ability to 'change the world' by lighting matches." an empty and transparent rhetorical device continued today by Brother Andre and other minor SBC meistros of this condescending and irrelevant apologetic in the service of denial and hatred that wears religious garb. He does it this way: "Americans are thus presented with the paradox of a Catholic priest whose message to them is to defend the "basic truth" that they are already children of God. Their need for Father Keller is not in his Sacrament of Holy Orders but in his unlimited ability to "change the world' by lighting matches. The initial success of Father Keller's panacea books and his "Farmers'Alamac' theology indicates that he is just what America wants by way of a Catholic priest. He will probably continue, successfully, until some new Keller-perhaps a rabbi this time-introduces a more advanced development of the "inter-faith" scheme of things. We suggest a rabbi because from where we stand, it sounds as though Father Keller will have some difficulty in accustoming his Jewish friends to "bear Christ" in other than profanity".

"Tale of Two Roads-Part II" Richmond Rooster January 1994

"In its December issue "The Richmond Rooster" provided the historical background of Fay Martin and Tully Brook Roads. The story chronicled events from the time Bill and Gina Sunderman built a home in 1971 until 1982 when Superior Court handed down its decision on Gilbert Cyr's suit against the Planning Board for denying his subdivision of the Thompson -Bilgelow-Howe lot.
The gist of the decision was for the Planning Board to reconsider and rehear Cyr's application. The court found the Planning Board had been remiss for not eliciting 'expert' testimony relative to roads and land use reports. The board complied with the Court's decree, repeated the process, and granted an approval of the subdivision with stipulations; the subdivider was to bring Tully Brook Road, from Fay Martin Road to the south boundary of the subdivision, up to Class V status.
Cyr did nothing, including not filing the plat with the Registry of Deeds thereby letting the subdivision approval become null and void.
Douglas Bersaw of Waltham, MA president of the Blessed Sacrament Community , Inc. bought the entire parcel from Cyr, who holds a first mortgage on the property. A building permit (8723) was granted in July 1887 for a garage and workshop, followed in September with a permit for a large house with attached el. This 'large house' was to be used as a monastery. A temporary driveway permit was also issued.
In March 1988 The Blessed Sacrament Community proposed the first of a three-stage, 35-lot subdivision. In its "Statement of Purpose' Bersaw wrote the 'Blessed Sacrament Community Inc. was formed for the purpose of purchasing, subdividing and developing a parcel of land to be used as a home for a number of Catholic families who wish to live in close proximity to one another.'
'It is our intention to subdivide this property and develop it as residential building lots...We fully intend to do this in conformance with the letter and spirit of the Richmond Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.. The fewer problems we create the better we will feel about this project...It is critical for us to get moving...The (Tully Brook) road must be rebuilt and the bridge replaced. Construction crews are waiting for the go ahead at this moment.'
'Stage two', Bersaw continued,'is the creation of 8 or 9 lots along the eastern side of (Tully Brook Road). As soon as our engineering plans and state septic subdivision approvals are completed we intend to submit our plans to the board. Hopefully that will be in April (1988). By the time those plans are finalized most of the construction of (Tully Brook) Road will be completed and families can begin building right away. We have 5 or 6 families in addition to myself building this year.'
"The third stage', wrote Bersaw, 'is the creation of about 25 three acre building lots. This project would include the partition of the monastery property. ...The major subdivision project will involve the creation of a new road built into the interior of the property and provide the necessary frontage for the new lots'.
The Site Plan Statement of Purpose read ' part of our traffic flow pattern is the access drive..to the interior road of the subdivision. This will keep most of the community traffic off of Fay Martin Road because it will provide direct vehicular access from all but 2 or 3 lots, to the monastery & chapel & school without having to travel on Fay Martin Road.'
'We have tried in our plans to make maximum use of (Tully Brook) Road and the interior network (which will be quite extensive) in order to minimize traffic on Fay Martin Road.'

The Fiscal Impact study Additional Notes state ' we intend to make the entrance to the development interior from Fay Martin Road a one-way entrance. That means that any cars leaving the houses would travel only interior roads to get to the monastery or school and they all exit the (Tully Brook) Road when leaving the property for other destinations. They would of course be able to come home by driving up the Fay Martin Road and entering that way. Of course, any traffic entering the monastery from outside the development would enter & exit by the Fay Martin Road, but this will be significantly reduced by our designed flow patterns.'
This interior road has since become the focus of controversy. The Blessed Sacrament Community was going forward with 'site-plan review for the construction of residential and institutional/religious uses'. Because traffic in and out of the Blesssed Sacrament Community was increasing the Planning Board stipulated an emergency access road be built connecting Fay Martin and Tully Brook Roads. On February 13, 1989, Bersaw signed an agreement assuring an emergency access road would be built to state structural guides for local roads and would be completed within two years.
Two days later the Planning Board granted approval of the 8-lot Phase 2 subdivision without counter signing the agreement. Instead it was forwarded to the Town's attorney, William N Prigge.
On February 16, Prigge returned the road agreement to Bersaw's attorney with changes specifying a surety bond and holding the town, or any of its boards or agencies, harmless against losses or claims. This meant the Planning Board had approved Phase 2 without a finalized access road agreement.
In March the Blessed Sacrament Community transferred the 12.67-acre monastery property to St. Benedict Center, Inc. of Still River, Massachusetts.
Two building permits were issued in August to St. Benedict's Center,. Permit #33-89 was to make corrections in the monastery building per the state fire marshall for a " place of public assembly-dormitory-educational-state designation mixed occupancy." Permit #37-89 was for an " addition of apartment above the existing garage", issued contrary to the original building permit #8723 which designated " this structure not to be use(d) for human habitation nor housing of animals".
It wasn't until September 27, 1889 that a final version of the agreement was signed. In that agreement the Blessed Sacrament Community agreed to " assume all expenses in connection with the said roadwork"...and to post "a bond with 2nd montage surety, in the amount of $60,000." Four more building permits have been issed since.
By all accounts the road should have been completed and approved by September 27, 1991. The Town granted an extension to the Blessed Sacrament Community delaying completion of the road to September 1, 1993. To date no work has been done on the access road. The matter has been turned over to the town's attorney.
In the meantime the traffic generated by the monastery and the school has been borne by Fay Martin Road. This is having a negative effect on the roadbed and the bridge.
Since Sudermans, six homes have been built on Fay Martin Road, none of which grew out of the Blessed Sacrament Community subdivision of the Thompson-Bigelow-Howe lot. But six homes have been built on Tully Brook Road all resulted because of that subdivision.
The transfer of the monastery to St. Benedict Center poses interesting questions? Are the two related? The first two building permits (33-89 & 37-89) issued to St. Benedict Center were signed by Douglas Bersaw, president of Blessed Sacrament Community. State approval for septic construction was applied for and issued to Blessed Sacrament Community, but has since been issued to St. Benedict Center.
A lot of money has been spent on building construction by the St. Benedict Center during the time Blessed Sacrament Community was supposed to be constructing a road. Can St. Benedict Center be held responsible for the access road if the Blessed Sacrament Community ceases to function?"

Next week SBC WATCH will post PART III of the Richmond Rooster's "Tale of Two Roads-Would Have, Could Have, Should Have"

Brother Andre's Latest Attempt to Clariffy the SBC"s Status within the Catholic Church

Brother Andre's revised "Status Within the Church"
go to : www.catholicism.org/micm-status.html