Latest update May 1st, 2026 12:30 AM
Latest News
- Exxon tightens noose on public consultations for 8th oil project
- GDF pilots in deadly crash lacked ratings to fly Bell 412 in low visibility — leaked report
- Iran threatens painful response if U.S. renews attacks
- Guyana slips in 2026 World Press Freedom Index
- PUC warns GPL of penalties over missed targets
Substantialia must uphold, and not contradict, these laws
Dear Editor,
It is now common knowledge that the Jesuits have been asked to quit their Presbytery at 29 Brickdam and take up residence at the CCY Building on Oronoque Street.
When I started this memorandum, I was not aware that certain steps were already taken to achieve this end. In short, a “fait accompli” was accomplished.
This fait accompli was not revealed to me when I discussed the issue with others, who were obviously aware of this fact.
An absolute silence existed. As such, it is all the more pertinent and relevant for me to state what follows.
Martin Fredericks was the original owner of the CCY Building. He transferred this property to the Catholic Church in the early sixties, on the condition that the property be used for the purpose that he specified.
I was present at his side when he handed over the keys to Bishop Guilly and made his specification. I cannot recall his exact words, nor can I say what his specification was — Catechesis or whatever.
I have consulted with Eddie Fredericks, his brother, and he is unable to say what Martin Fredericks’s specification was. However, it is my information that Bishop Guilly was very methodical and kept accurate records of all Church properties in the Diocese.
These records are usually kept at Bishop’s House. Thus, the problem would be easily elucidated by consulting the relevant records. If the property in question is to be used by the Jesuits, this would be entirely alien to what Martin Fredericks had in mind.
To simply negate the wishes of Martin Fredericks, who more or less donated the property in question, constitutes an immoral act, and is a total disregard for a law of the Church – Canon 1267:3 states – “The offerings given by the faithful for a definite purpose can be applied only for that same purpose.”
Substantialia must uphold, and not contradict, the laws of the Church. Canon 1267:3 is not an exception. To present an omerta-like silence when confronted with an unjust and immoral act is an affront to the principles of the Church.
John Fredericks, M.D.
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.