FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sanctus Ranch Responds to Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller’s False and Defamatory Allegations about Private Retreat Center
Archbishop offered Holy Mass twice at a retreat center he now opposes
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Feb. 9, 2024) – Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller’s “prohibition” of January 30, 2024, barring Catholic entities from contracting with Sanctus Ranch, a private entity and retreat center located in Pipe Creek, Texas, and urging Christian faithful from attending “any of its activities”, if intentional, constitutes an egregious exercise in abuse of ecclesiastical power on the part of a sitting Archbishop of the Catholic Church.
Sanctus Ranch and its owner are considering all of their canonical and civil legal options regarding the attempt of the Archbishop to destroy a private Texas business ordered to the building up of the Kingdom of God, and vilify two priests as well as a hardworking layman.
Sanctus Ranch is a private retreat center in the state of Texas and has never claimed to represent the Catholic Church, act on its behalf, or operate as a part of the ecclesiastical structure of the Catholic Church, contrary to what is insinuated by the Archbishop’s statement.
The owner and Executive Director, Dan Sevigny, is a faithful lay Catholic in good standing with the Church. Over the years, he has spent millions of dollars of his own money to create a private oasis within an otherwise desiccated ecclesiastical landscape. And he has had every right to do so under civil and canon law.
Despite the Archbishop’s statement asserting, “There has been no approval granted to conduct sacramental ministry of any kind in this chapel and the altar has not been dedicated for the Sacred Liturgy", in 2019, the Archbishop himself twice celebrated Mass on a non-dedicated altar of the Ranch. His auxiliary bishop, Gary Janak also offered Mass on the same altar for a men’s retreat in October 2021. For the Archbishop to condemn publicly his own ministerial conduct, as well as that of Bishop Janak, is the essence of hypocrisy.
In his Prohibition, the Archbishop attacks two devoted priests who have offered to help the lay faithful coming to Sanctus Ranch for spiritual aid and respite. The first is the Reverend Donald Kloster, who was personally accused by the Archbishop of having invalidly dispensed the sacrament of Penance at Sanctus Ranch. One major problem with that allegation: the Reverend Kloster has never even heard confessions or imparted sacramental absolution at Sanctus Ranch. The second priest mentioned, the Reverend Jeffery Fasching, was granted by his home Diocese of Wichita the habitual faculty to absolve from sins confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. According to canon 967, §2 of the Code of Canon Law, this faculty is effective everywhere unless revoked by another bishop. The Archbishop of San Antonio never revoked the Reverend Fasching’s faculty to absolve from sin, and so all of his absolutions from sin were valid.
Contrary to what is implied, the priests who have periodically visited the private property and given spiritual solace to those who attend retreats and meetings have never suffered canonical penalties and are not in violation of the universal law of the Catholic Church.
If intentionally made, the assertions of the Archbishop that these two good men and priests invalidly dispensed absolution from sins confessed, are false and injurious according to the canon law of the Catholic Church, and require reparation of the harm inflicted (cf. canon 128 CIC). Only the Vatican’s court system may adjudicate if the Archbishop maliciously committed canonical crimes according to the canon law of the Church (cf. canon 1390, §2; 1391, 3° CIC). Given the gravity of the matter, the two priests who have been libeled, and the injuries suffered by them, Sanctus Ranch, and its owner Dan Sevigny, the misconduct of the Archbishop is being reported to the Vatican.
Sanctus Ranch only exists to provide spiritual solace to Catholics, other Christians, and all men and women of good will who are seeking to deepen their relationship with Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the Archbishop goes to great pains to poison the well against the retreat center and owner for unknown reasons.
Regarding Lumen Christi Academy, it does not claim, and never has claimed, to be an Archdiocesan Catholic school. It operates as a place of learning according to the Socratic method and the classical Christian tradition. Due to its founding families, the ethos of the school has been unapologetically catholic since its inception. For the Archbishop to claim there is a “misrepresentation” to the public is false and misleading.
The Archbishop has disrespected the children and families who have chosen this private education. He owes a sincere apology to the families who have benefited from the education offered at Lumen Christi Academy, whom he has gravely scandalized.
Finally, for the Archbishop to declare that numerous entities, under his authority or not, are prohibited from contracting with Sanctus Ranch, and if already have done so, to contact his office, raises serious questions of a legal order. Lawyers are being consulted to determine the next appropriate steps.
If the Archbishop desires more synergy with Sanctus Ranch to achieve common goals, Sanctus Ranch management is willing to turn the other cheek and engage, subject to reasonable notice of an agenda and good faith on the part of his representatives in view of working together in, and harvesting good fruit from, the Vineyard of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But first, the Archbishop needs, publicly, to retract his false allegations, and publicly apologize to those whom he has defamed and injured, whether intentionally or unwittingly: the Rev. Jeffery Fasching; the Rev. Donald Kloster; Dan Sevigny; and the parents and children of Lumen Christi Academy. Not once did he or his aides even ask those defamed by him if specific allegations were true prior to the release of the prohibition.
As a shepherd of souls, the Archbishop’s statement should have been based on verified facts. Unfortunately, it was rooted in some rather damning falsehoods.
###
