Pedophile Priests Or Tridentiners

[cmotherofpirl]

No Troll.  Mark4IHM's been here awhile.

If the shoe fits.....

[Good Friday]

Say it with me now: May the unity of Christ be with us all.

Mark and Donna -- It is totally inappropriate to question the Bishops' decision to allow the Tridentine Mass, as ultimately that decision is theirs and theirs alone. No "universal indult" has been granted to the entire Church to celebrate the Tridentine Mass; since one has not been granted, it is up to the Diocesan Bishop to decide whether or not the Tridentine Mass will be celebrated or not. If the Bishop decides yes, that's his right. If the Bishop decides no, that's his right.

I agree that some of the Bishops were very wrong for defending priests who were involved in violation of their priestly celibacy by committing the acts of a pedophile and/or sleeping with young men (which is not pedophilia). But that was not all Bishops, nor is it your place to correct them. They will be corrected civilly by the court of law and they will be corrected in the Church by the Holy Father, not a couple of laypeople who think they know what's best.

Besides, it doesn't seem from your post that you are truly interested in the scandal, but on capitalizing on the scandal -- just like Voice of the Faithful, a pro-abortion "Catholic" group that has capitalized on the scandal to advance their agenda, i.e. discrediting the Bishops so that their agenda doesn't look so bad. What you and Mark have done here is no different just because you happen to be traditionalists rather than liberals.

To everyone else -- I don't think it was appropriate to call Mark a troll, and I don't think we need to resort to personal insults to get our points across.

[VanHooty]

To everyone else -- I don't think it was appropriate to call Mark a troll, and I don't think we need to resort to personal insults to get our points across.

Quite honestly, I come from a Usenet background. Usenet, from what I've gathered, seems to be very different then this here webforum. It's as close to anarchy as you can get, and the occasional flame doesn't seem to bother anyone. Including the person being flamed.

So, if I've broached some sort of rule of web phorum nettiquete, I hearily apologize. We Usenetters are known for our bluntness. :)

[Good Friday]

It's no big deal, VanHooty. Having been at PM for a while now, I've noticed that small things like this can often develop into quite large things, so I'm just trying to keep the peace. I told dUSt I would keep y'all in line while he's gone.

If you had been here during my time with "the dark side," you would know how very funny the idea of me keeping y'all in line is... I've done far worse than call people trolls. But having been involved in almost every argument in the past few months, I know what can potentially cause them, and calling people trolls here can definitely do it. We try not to disrupt Phatmass too much since it could reflect badly on dUSt's website and on the Hip-Hop Compilation Project... if people come here and see us all bickering and being nasty, they're gonna think: "Why do I wanna have anything to do with this website?" That is, of course, what Satan wants. He'd love for us all to bicker each other and Phatmass into a complete lack of credibility and Catholicity.

That's why he throws in a few arguments every once in a while. There seems to be at least one argument going on here fairly consistently. I was just trying to avoid one more.

[littleflower+JMJ]

oh fearless leader, you have done a remarkable job!!!

love ya speech!!!

:D

ps. and vanhooty, its otay! your still a newbie (well not for long with how much your posting! ) its all good!

[PedroX]

While the old Mass is beautiful, is it any more Holy than the Novus Ordus? Are we saying that the Church is wrong in its decision to ordain the new Mass? The point of saying the Mass in Latin was to standarize the Mass around the world. If I could presume to know the minds of the Bishops, I would guess the reason for insisting on the new Mass was similar.

Many of the Bishops relied on advice from counselors and physcologists (sp?) in making the determination to keep a priest in service, or not. The advice was wrong. While one might (if one was prone to divisiveness) question why the Biships listened to such advice, the fact remains that in most cases they sought advice, and followed it. Also, remeber that many of these cases are years if not decades old. Much of our understanding of psychology and the humand mind has changed in that time. This does not excuse the priest, but does shed light on the situation.

Lastly, for me, a large part of being Catholic is obeidence. If it wasn't, we would all be Protestants, free to leave and start our own church whenever we felt like it.

peace...

[Donna]

National Review Online, Dallas Morning News, The Wanderer.

The sources were listed.

Diocese report is mostly links of news stories reported by the press.

The Wanderer (still) disdains traditionalists. They decried altar girls before the approval, defended them after the approval. And etcetera.They may bark; barking is not biting.

Nathan, thank you for the salutation. It does help. .

I frankly don't understand the offence taken. Those parents on this phorum, if there are any, who've had to complain about or remove their children from diocesan schools 'cause of sex ed, etc; certainly care about obedience: of the Bishop, the Shepherd, the one invested with Apostolic Authority to guard and teach the deposit of the Faith in the Church which is not his own:

but purchased by the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, the One, True God.

Many souls are suffering -including many here, I would bet.

It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf in sheep's clothing, so says Francis de Sales. That is not disobedience. And it is not reserved for the heirarchy alone. Look at Ironmonk and his letters, de-crying abuse. That is a canonical right of every Catholic. And the St. Joseph Forum exists for this very purpose. To defend Catholic layity in ecclesiastical courts - usually because of abuses by- and no recourse to - those in authority.

The above sentence does not affect the indefectibility of the Church. Quite the opposite.

[vianney]

Well said Donna!

[mark4IHM]

Dear Hyper,

Thank you for having the courtesy to answer my question. Ditto with my kids.

JasJis and c-mom, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but please have the courtesy to answer my question. It is a sincere one. JasJis, perhaps I am wrong but I do believe the two policies I noted are related. Either specify how I am engaging in calumny, or retract that charge. And c-mom, obedience is a cardinal virtue, but it is subordinate to the theological virtue of Faith.

Hooty,

No offense taken. I learned a new word. Would you please answer my question?

Don John,

Thanks for your post. I agree with you about the Mass, and obedience to the Magisterium, the true Living Tradition of the CHurch, that includes the Mass of all time.

[mark4IHM]

Friday,

Thanks for your posts, and for answering my question.

There is a real question as to whether the "Old Mass" requires permission to be said. John Paul II convened a commission of Cardinals who concluded no permission was necessary, but this conclusion was not publicized for the obvious reasons.

You are right though, at least in a practical sense, that the bishops have the authority to grant permission for the "Indult Mass." The Holy Father has instructed them to make a wide and generous application of this permission, which most of them have refused to do. Do the bishop's disobedience of the Holy Father in this matter affect your opinion as to their absolute authority to decide this for themselves?

As for "correcting" the bishops, show me where I did this. I merely relayed the facts of the matter as briefly as I could, drew a reasonable conclusion, and asked a question. This is capitalizing on the issue? Give me a break. Such a charge dishonors us both.

Mark

[mark4IHM]

Dear Donna,

Thank you for your posts on this thread. I thought they were very good, and informative.

You are right, Catholics may protest unjust acts by the hierarchy that damage souls (St. Thomas Aquinas), and the two policies I cited fit that category. I note that I was not protesting them as much as describing them; but I think the natural reaction to such policies is to have an offended sense of justice.

I further note that it is very Catholic to be offended by injustice, as witnessed by our Lord's reactions to the Scribes and Pharisees. Unfortunately, Some Catholics seem to have subordinated their sense of justice to what I can only call a warped view of obedience that, IMHO, is more Masonic than Catholic.

You are one of the few people on this thread who may understand the connection between the two policies. Policies aren't formed in vacuums, are they? They have a purpose, and because of their exalted office as princes of the Church, bishops policies carry much supernatural weight - for good and ill.

Pope St. Pius X certainly knew this, and acted accordingly. Let us pray that our entire hierarchy is similarly enlightened, for there is much good they still may do.

I am praying to St. Pius X for your perseverance.

Mark

[cmotherofpirl]

What do you define "the Mass of all time"? The Trid?

[Good Friday]

There is no "Mass of all time." Such a thing is a fallacy. The Mass is a discipline, and therefore it changes. The Mass we have now is not in Aramaic and we do not recline at the altar, the way Jesus conducted the first Mass. If anything were going to be the "Mass of all time," it would be that Mass.

There is a real question as to whether the "Old Mass" requires permission to be said. John Paul II convened a commission of Cardinals who concluded no permission was necessary, but this conclusion was not publicized for the obvious reasons.

If it wasn't publicized, it was because the Holy Father disagreed and rejected it, otherwise he would have published it. If the Holy Father disagreed and rejected it, then I disagree and reject it along with His Holiness. He is more important to me than a discipline that has changed.

You are right though, at least in a practical sense, that the bishops have the authority to grant permission for the "Indult Mass." The Holy Father has instructed them to make a wide and generous application of this permission, which most of them have refused to do. Do the bishop's disobedience of the Holy Father in this matter affect your opinion as to their absolute authority to decide this for themselves?

The Holy Father has instructed them to do so, but since it's their decision it's obvious the Holy Father has left it ultimately to their judgment, otherwise he would have just issued a universal indult. No, their alleged disobedience does not affect my opinion as to their absolute authority to decide this issue, because it is not my place to decide if they've been disobedient. If they have been disobedient, the Holy Father will decide and react accordingly. Until he does react and call them disobedient, I will continue to honor the authority of the Bishops in this matter. Your refusal to do the same borders on schism.

As for "correcting" the bishops, show me where I did this. I merely relayed the facts of the matter as briefly as I could, drew a reasonable conclusion, and asked a question. This is capitalizing on the issue? Give me a break. Such a charge dishonors us both.

Is it your contention, then, that the point of this post was not to advance any kind of agenda whatsoever?

By the way, if you're so concerned about honoring the both of us, why are you not more concerned with honoring the Bishops and the wisdom of the Holy Father?

[jasJis]

mark4him,

I do not retract the charge of calumny. I re-read the post and am again offended. There are two sides to the actions of the Bishops and priests. Only one very defamatory side is given, and it is clearly biased. I am not saying that all the Bishops were acting, or even now acting properly in the matter of the pedophiles.

Bishop Law was extremely arrogant and would not listen to advisors who disagreed when he made up his mind. This was told to me by a priest who worked for the Bishop for years in a Diocesan ministry at the Diocese office so had frequent contact with him.

Bishop Law was also a nice man and thougt that the psychiatric help and prayer would cure the priest. They were shuffled to other parishes in order to help the priest with little thought of harm to the parish. The tone and intent of the article you posted clearly makes it seem as the intent was to shield the priest in order to allow them to continue the behavior instead of shielding the priest from his past sins to give him a fresh start. It was a mistake, but not neccessarily of evil intent.

The entire circumstances of the other priest being suspended are not presented. I would doubt the suspending Bishop would say that it was entirely for the motive of quashing the Tridentine Mass. It is about obedience. Did the Bishop have problems with schismatic scedevaconists in his Diocese? Could it be possible that allowing the Mass in this instance would have encouraged a group of schismatics? I don't know. Not enough evidence is given to support or deny this, but the article clearly acts like the Bishop acted solely to deny the Tridentine Mass because it's not Novus Ordo.

Catholic teaching is to give the benefit of the doubt to the other when you don't know their motives. Calumny is ascribing evil motives when motives aren't really known and is an act against charity.

Explain to me how calumny is not an appropriate charge in this case.

[PedroX]

Jas,

I'm in complete agreement. I love the Tridentine Mass, and I wish it was more widely practiced. I would love for a lot of the old customs to be seen again, but I have not been granted the responsibility to lead the Church. Therefore, I don't have the same perspective as the Bishop does.

It is crucial to also remember what I and JasJis has said before: many of the Bishops acted out of Charity, and the pyschological advice that they had when dealing with unfaithful priests. I was horrified when the scandal broke, and I was concerned after their meeting in Dallas, but it is not my place to find them (the Bishops) wanting in the way God has led them to lead us.

peace...