Pedophile Priests Or Tridentiners

[Donna]

Page 186 of Father Haley's deposition as posted by Roman Catholic Faithful website. This is a public record.

Page 186

an indication of some real problems that I

thought they would address.

Q Did you indicate to him at that time

where he could go and find this material

since he had the presumed right to do that?

Did you point out that it was with Father --

A Hamilton.

Q Hamilton?

A No. My solution at that point was to

try and negotiate another diocese because

it was becoming horribly and painfully clear

that this bishop was not going to do anything

significant about these significant problems.

Q During the months and years prior to

that in these meetings, was he still

challenging you on the 1995 matter?

A It has always been the weapon or tool

of his, quote, "concerns with me." A very

ancient allegation that was never shown to

me, that had been covered clearly and

thoroughly, but kept coming up again and

again and again and what I consider now a

[jasJis]

And the point of your posting this is?.....

[Donna]

This is public record.

One of the priests Fr. Haley gave documented information to Bishop Loverde about was Fr. Verraccia, which included some of the latter's penchant for children.

Fr. V had been having a relationship with parishoner Mrs. Lambert. It had been not concealed for months. Mr. Lambert, the parishoner's wife, and father of their four children, had filed a lawsuit against the diocese for not stopping Fr. V's activity with his wife.

Fast forward: Fr. V left the parish, "married" Mrs. Lambert, and is now "father" to her four children.

Father Haley - the offender - has been suspended and has been stripped of his faculties.

Good-bye Good Man

Good-bye True Son Of Mary

[Donna]

The point of my posting this... Maybe the people should know.

Prayers for Mr. Lambert and Father Haley in particular.

And for the Lambert children.

And for the others.

[Donna]

Nathan, I think you know my views on the old Mass: Quo Primum, the commision of Cardinals Mark posted about,

( C. Stickler was one of the nine of the commision, and went on record saying that the old Mass had not been outlawed and etc;); and the Hawaii 6, defended by the St. Joseph Forum (in part if not all) are what I base this view on. Quo Primum besides giving a perpetual indult to that old Mass, says if there be any Catholic rite of Mass in existence for at least 200 years, then that Mass is always allowed by the Immemorial Law of Custom. No Pontiff since 1962 has said nay to this.

I say nothing about the 1984/88' indults. I have no response to this.

But why would a bishop allow "diverse" types of Masses, except the old? I don't know. Aren't we supposedly a unity in diversity church? He's the Bishop; he will do what he will.

I began posting on the pedophile/sexual immorality in response to a post of pedrox and I think yours, which I took to be saying that we should basically not say anything unless we have something nice to say about these scandals. And it so happens that shepherds are a big part of them. (Even if by no direct commission by a bishop, the good are maligned and the wicked are rewarded. Who's responsibile for the diocese? Who will answer to almighty God for it?)

This affronted me very much because I have read the depositions of more than just poor Fr. Haley. This thread jutted off to another topic, and that is what I was posting in response to, and I guess I should have made that clear right then. I assumed it didn't need explaining. For confusion that I may have caused, I apologize.

But - by the good graces of dUSt - if people keep alluding to what they wish certain bishops to be, rather than what is becoming horryfyingly clearer each day, what some bishops, monsignors, chancery people's, etc; actually are, backed up by evidence-

And as long as the good priests are being tarred and feathered for being holy men, true sons of Mary and the kind of priest-shepherds we cry to God to give us, alter christus' of God decrying these foul practices in the Holy Church,

And as long as lay sons of the Church by being over-zealous to an obedience which may only be human respect fail in justice to publicly defend good priests,

Then maybe I need to keep posting these things.

P.S. If it were clergy being fouly immoral with women, I would do just the same.

Edited August 10, 2003 by Donna

[jasJis]

Donna,

I personally know of priests that have covered up things done by others that should not have been covered up. I've witnessed many priests do horrible things by word, act, or ommission (even to me personally). Anyone who is involved in parish life will see these things. The only impression I get from your posting is that this behavior is the norm, not the exception.

I've see the bad, and I've seen the good. The horridness is the exception, not the rule. I do not think it likely that truely wicked men become priests and bishops, but I do realize it has happened. Whether they were wicked before, or succumbed later, I do not know. I also know some great preists, seminarians, ex-seminarieans, and have a childhood friend who became a priest.

It's when people get the impression from posts that majority of Bishops are wicked, and/or the system creates wicked priests and Bishops that the broad brush of tar and the bucket of feathers is thrown on the vast majority of priests and Bishops that are truely holy and devout men.

[mark4IHM]

I appreciate everyone's interest in this thread, and regret I don't have more time to devote to it. Like all threads, conversation veers off, so I'll try to make some points to focus things.

Friday, I remember a conversation we had a while back about the Inquisition. I defended it, and you, if I remember right, could find no redeeming qualities in it. I congratulate you on your progress since that conversation. In fact, with a little more practice you could be a junior Inquisitor.

You suspect me of the sinister motive of advancing traditional Catholicism, and would like to prove it, perhaps in the belief that this "motive" discredits me and anything I may have to say. If by "agenda" you mean the eternal, unchanging faith handed down by Christ to the apostles, and by the apostles to succeeding generations, I am happy to say guilty as charged. But this is not an agenda; it is practicing the faith in order to gain the beatific vision, something I pray for, not only for myself, but for you and everyone reading this post.

As for "dishonoring" the bishops, I am only relaying what are generally conceded to be facts. Were I truly to dishonor them, I would judge them, personally attack them, or call them names; one of their own called the American episcopate a "hapless bench of bishops." But I did not, and when you complained I was "correcting" (ie, judging) them, I asked you to show me where I did this. I take your silence as an admission that you could not...

I do believe there is a relationship between the policies of the majority of American bishops, ie, extreme lenience towards child molesting priests and stringency toward the traditional Faith. Both policies are against faith and (arguably) morals. Any suppression of the true faith is an offense against God - wherever it occurs, even within the Church itself. When the true Faith is suppressed or marginalized, say in favor of theological and liturgical novelties, there is a lessening of grace. This obviously affects the moral life of Catholics, including priests and bishops. The suppression of the true Faith, including the "Old" Mass, leaves a considerable vacuum in a supernatural institution based on Tradition. That all sorts of demons jumped into the void over the past few decades I think is an objective fact. Hence scandals, of which a predatory clergy is, unfortunately, only one of many.

But there is another explanation linking the episcopal policies of sheltering bad priests and suppressing traditional Catholicism. It has do do with the bias against the traditional Faith that became visible at Vatican II and has basically reigned during the post-conciliar years. I am talking about Freemasonry. As the Church has marks that distinguish her, so does the counterfeit church of Masonry. The marks of Masonry are murder (physical or spiritual), lies, perversion, and a hatred of the Faith. The episcopal policies under discussion here - perversion and a hatred of the Faith - are linked by the anti-Catholic spirit of Masonry. The cure is not getting rid of the bad priests, although that's a good start. The cure is a return to the Catholic Faith, whole and entire.

This restoration will happen, probably not in our life times, although anything is possible with God. Meanwhile, we are obliged to know the real Faith, and to defend it, in all charity.

By the way, I am not saying the bishops or the bad priests are all Freemasons. That is simplistic. Rather, they, and most conciliar Catholics, are infected with the spirit of Freemasonry under guise of a new and improved Catholicism. In this they feel justified in protecting their turf, defending the indefensible, and in suppressing dissent.

Nor am I saying that one who claims to be a traditional Catholic has all the answers or is free from sin. It is not people who have the answers, but Revelation from Almighty God, as handed down via Tradition to every succeeding generation, including ours.

Which leaves one more question. Who is more dangerous to the post-conciliar Church: pedophile priests or traditional Catholics? I'll answer this in my next post.

[mark4IHM]

Who is more dangerous to the post-conciliar Church, pedophile priests or traditional Catholics?

I have documented that the majority of American bishops appear by their actions to be more alarmed about traditional Catholicism than predatory, child molesting priests, who commit sins that cry out to Heaven for justice.

I happen to agree with the bishops. The traditional Faith is more of a threat to the post-conciliar Church. As distasteful, criminal and immoral as it is, one can do "damage control" with scandals, weather the storm, and retain the perks of office, unless you are a sacrificial lamb like Cardinal Law.

On the other hand, the restoration of the true Faith would cause the house of cards known as the Vatican II Church to disappear like smoke before a cool breeze.

The bishops have every reason to be alarmed over this possibility, and act accordingly.

Mark

P.S. I haven't had time to read most of the posts in the last week. Working full time and raising seven young children doesn't leave much time for cyber-chat. I thank all of you for your prayers. Please be assured of mine.

[hyperdulia again]

Mark, I agree with you that Traditionalists are mistreated and that no real permission should be required needed to say the Mass that nourished 400 years of saints. I agree that the behavior of the bishops during the molestation scandals was deplorable, but I don't agree that those of us who don't exclusively attend the Latin Mass and cling to the old ways are somehow or another practicing something less than Catholicism, if you believe that, then why even stay in the institutionnal church?

[Good Friday]

Traditionalists are more dangerous to the Church. Why? Because they're schismatics and in some cases heretics, and their heresy looks to some like it's not heresy. They dress up their schism and heresy in the beauty of the Tridentine Mass and the old customs of the Catholic Church. They spout half-truths and lies that look like truths, and they assault the Catholic Church as any good liberal schismatic and/or heretic would. They are more dangerous because the danger they present doesn't look all that dangerous, and so they lead more souls down the path to hell.

Pedophiles, on the other hand, do not have this effect. Their sin looks like a sin to most people. They cannot dress up their sin in any kind of beauty or old customs. Their sin is blatantly sinful, and they cannot use half-truths and lies that look like truths to justify their sins. They do not always assault the Catholic Church; in fact, some of them may honestly desire to follow the teachings of the Church, but perhaps they cannot because of their psychological disorder. They are less dangerous because the danger they present looks dangerous, and so it is very difficult for them to hook others into the sin of pedophilia.

So yeah. I think that traditionalists are more dangerous to the Church and to the Church's children than pedophile priests are, because there are more traditionalists and because their sinfulness is more attractive than the sinfulness of pedophiles.

And that's my final answer.

[vianney]

how do tradiitionalists spout half truths and lead ppl to hell, may i have examples good friday?

[Good Friday]

how do tradiitionalists spout half truths and lead ppl to hell, may i have examples good friday?

Certainly. The half-truth lies in their alleged love for the Tridentine Mass. On the one hand, they do seem to love the Tridentine Mass; on the other hand, if they had a true love for the Mass they would respect that the Church is the one with the right to change it, and that they have no right to question her when she does. Their love for the Mass is a love for a certain custom and discipline, rather than for the Mass itself. Yet they make it look to others as if they have a love for the Mass, when in actuality they do not.

Please, though, be aware that I'm speaking of schismatic traditionalists. There are traditionalists who are in the Catholic Church, and I'm not speaking of them.

There are other half-truths that schismatic traditionalists tell to lure people into their way of thinking.

[vianney]

Ahh ok i gotcha. Ha Ha because I love the latin mass and attend it sometimes and it is perfectly ok for mass to be in Latin according to my Bishop and that of John Paul the II. I didnt know you were refering to schismatics. But I dont think that the thread is talking about schismatics rather just traditionalist catholics...Am I wrong?

[Chrysologus]

Sweet mercy, vianney, your avatar is so terrifying!!!

[hyperdulia again]

isn't it tho'...and i thought cure's old avatar was scary...my lil' family's asleep and i'm here all all alone...

st john vianney protect me from scary images of you!