www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope Disciplines Legionaries' Founder

Bless, Father Anthony!

And I have a complaint regarding you!

You are so wonderful that you are posing a proximate temptation to me to become Orthodox!

Can you tone your vibrant personality down a bit?

O.K., I'll go do something productive . . .

Kissing your right hand, I implore your blessing,

Alex

It seems to me one of the main things that may anger some of the alleged, but apparently likely victims, is the fact that the CDF consciously chose to forgo a canonical trial. There can only be a presumption of guilt due to the breadth and substance of the allegations and the fact that he has been sent in to seclusion by the CDF.

Your point honestly makes no sense to me.

Based on what I said above, what the person who wrote the editorial will only ever be able to do is presume that there is truth to the allegations, of which there were many with obviously enough substance for the CDF to act in some fashion. I know nothing about the editor, but I think to posit the idea that they are no better spiritually than Fr. Maciel (given the gravity and substance of the allegations against him) is a rather preposterous assumption.

When I read the editorial, �hideously irresponsible� is not what came to mind.

Andrew

I am willing to accept your assessment with an apology. I was always taught that you address the points made in a dialogue first and then add your own observations, so I was not wrong in mentioning your dissembling tactics, simply impolitic.

I do not believe that can be sustained across the American boards, but in the current accusatory climate, I hesitate to point to examples. So I will simply risk saying that I know of instances where this is egregiously false a claim. It simply has not been brought fully into public discourse as it has in the Latin rite.

Ah...."my church?" I see your thinking here. I had not been fully aware. Thank you.

Well from what I have seen in the archives that is the definitely the pot speaking to the kettle. We had a system of reporting in grade school that I remember quite well. I tended not to participate in that but then I never did get very far in life, but my peers seem to have done quite well for themselves.

Ahhh...death by quarum has become a virtue. Et tu Brutissimus?

Ahhhwell...my apologies for looking for a equitable and interesting discussion on morals.

Eli

A point made without charity or politeness carries no moral merit at all.

I remind Elitoft and all posters that the first rule on the Forum is one of charity. Those posters who choose to post without charity will loose their posting privileges.

Admin

Would you be willing to be more specific, Father. I have no idea what qualifies in this Forum as caustic and combative. Some things that I think are quite personally nasty seem to pass, while I think that I have been called to task for daring to call dissembling by its good English name.

Could you give me something more specific to go on here, else I fear I shall be open to accusations that are so free-wheeling so as to be meaningless in substance, and only meaningfull as complaints and attacks against my person, as in "Throw the bum out!!" That is very effective a tactic in this kind of environment. I hope you will work with me fairly so as not to run into that kind of situation here.

It is only just to offer me specifics of my wrongdoing.

Eli

This is very distressing. I have not posted without charity. I bear no ill will toward any of you.

I ask again, please, what have I done save to say that not addressing my points, taking the conversation off into some other area of discussion is dissembling. That is what it is to not address the points on the table in a discussion.

How in heaven's name am I to know what it is that has been uncharitable if all that is offered are generalized accusations. And how is it that I am to be accused of uncharitableness in such general terms, when I have no idea what I have done specifically?

Do you suppose this is the kind of thing that may have happened to Father Maciel? Perhaps.

Eli

Elitoft,

Your statement that you are unaware of any lack of charity in your posts is hard to believe. In this thread alone you�ve claimed high moral ground for your own opinion and dismissed opinion that is different than yours as �dissembling�. You�ve also dismissed calls by other posters for charity as prohibiting �equitable and interesting discussion�. In other threads your choice of words is always confrontational and seems purposefully caustic, coming with a strong overtone of someone who believes that someone who is correct in everything he posts has no need to be polite.

This is your only formal warning. Either be charitable in all your posts or loose your posting privilege. If you are not capable of understanding that your posts are without charity please do not bother to post here again.

Admin

Article [renewamerica.us]

Dear Admin,

I believe that you see my confusion as a challenge to your authority. I truly and genuinely do not see that I have been unkind to any person here on the Forum, much less guilty of the sin of uncharity.

It does not distress me if people do not agree with me. It does cause some consternation when people do not even address any point that I have made but go on to make it seem as though I am taking positions that I am not. How does one defend a position that one is accused of having when in fact they do not take that position at all? That is technically a forensic tactic called dissembling.

You are the authority here so I have no choice but to accept your judgment and any penalty that you choose to invoke against me.

I offer apology to all who have been offended by my style or my approach, there certainly nothing personal in any of it.

Eli

Dear Eli,

Personally, I've no problem with you - you are right that I have my own issues and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that!

I just wondered what was meant by your comment re: "dissembling."

Without an explanation, I see that as being a bit nasty. If you could explain why you see me as being dissembling, then I'm not above agreeing with you, apologising, and even accepting a penance! For me, the term suggests that I am trying to bring a form of schism down or some such thing - and that I find distressing.

I believe that anyone, yes, including clergy, can repent and be reinstated etc. The Eastern Church's canons - and these go back a few centuries - do prescribe defrocking etc. for certain offenses. That, for me, is "Catholic tradition." If that is not for you, then we differ.

You are more forgiving of the sins of clergy than many Catholics would be - and that is a virtue, not a vice.

And I apologise for my own caustic response to you above.

The only thing I can offer by way of "excuse" is that I was about to visit my dentist - and that's the drill . . .

Now I'm waiting for the freezing to wear off so I can have lunch.

Anyway, you are way above me intellectually, so please forgive my ignorance in not knowing what you meant by "dissembling."

For me a "moral discussion" is any talk I'm involved in that doesn't see me use bad language!

And the Administrator here is simply doing his job. That he has tolerated me for so long is testimony not only to his considerable leadership style, but also to the high level of Grace he bears in his soul!

Alex

Then I shall count on you to help me to muddle through! :p

That's easy. I wrote a lovely and well thought out post about some of the moral issues involved in the public invitation of Father Maciel to private life. [God I hate emoticons!!]

Then you responded with four short one-liners [all things approximate here, particularly line-counts]that totally left what I had said in the dust and opened a whole new set of topics for discussion, also and in addition, putting me on the defensive as though what I had said was somehow in contradiction to what you had said. And that as I said, forensically and technically, is a debate tactic known as dissembling. It's more of a psychological term really but I'm not going to split hairs if you don't.

Good, Lord! We do wear our feelings on our sleeves now don't we? To use an accurately placed technical term is nasty? It should have been self explanatory. You see, now, how I am. I thought it should at any rate, which is how I get into trouble you see. I just don't see why people don't get it.

I did and you may feel free to disagree with what I've said!!

I could take offense here you realize? This is a rather aggressive approach, and I could have accused you of being snarky. I don't see how this differs from the kind of thing that I do on occasion that gets people's backs all arched up. That is why I get confused. Why is it all right here but not when I or another, out of favor soul, gets slapped down?

Of course I agree that is "Catholic tradition." Do you agree that guilt can only be determinded after due process and not before due process and not in lieu of due process?

Do you agree that any presumption of guilt without due process is not morally, ethically or legally wholesome or binding or moral or ethical?

And that is even more astonishing given the fact that I am a living witness to the destructive force of sexual tampering. I am also a living witness to the destructive force of unforgiveness.

And I for anything that caused you discomfort. I do enjoy discussing with you in a free exchange of ideas.

Horrid!

Even if that were true, it would only mean that when I fall, I hit the ground with a louder and more bone crunching thud.

I like that!

It is difficult at best, for me, to be accused falsely, so I tend not to react well to being accused so emphatically and without recourse. Proof positive that I have not achieved a high level of Christ-like spiritual reflexes.

My pleasure, Alex.

Eli

Dear Eli,

You are right on!

And the Administrator would agree that I can be very snarky on occasion.

That is a big fault of mine - my current training as a potential oblate of St Benedict, however, is really helping me see myself as if in a mirror. His precious Rule is truly a gem, as I know you will agree.

I should have gone in for this years ago.

Anyway, you are O.K.

I once got quite nasty with the Administrator for what I perceived at the time was his staunch and stubborn refusal to spell the name of the capital city of Ukraine as "Kyiv."

So you see how far I've come since . . . "Kiev" or "Kyiv" - what difference does it make.

And I wish you and all those in the former colonies of the British Empire south of our border a very happy Memorial Day weekend!

God bless America!

Cheers,

Alex

Why Orthodox Catholics are Angry with the Legion [newoxfordreview.org]

I thought this was an interesting article by Michael Rose...

Gordo

Dear Gordo and all,

There is one small fly in the ointment of the prevailing logic of justice being used in the most common observations of the sex abuse situation coming from laity, clergy and the press, and I never hear it addressed.

Not all priests who have had credible charges issued against them have been punished. Not all priests who have been punished have undergone any kind of due process at all, and the only one determining credibility is a bishop. Now that is a great deal of power over a life to hand one man.
Do we all believe that all of our bishops hands are all that clean in the sex scandals? Do you believe that all of the guilty ones have been processed out?

It is wrong to demand punishment without due process. It is wrong to speak of guilt without due process. It is entirely possible to speak of innocence of one who lives chastely and absolved, no matter what one has done in the past.

I think, personally, that we need to be rethinking the entire issue in light of the above, but it is often worth one's good reputation to even suggest such a thing. Why?

Eli

Mr. Rose has quite succinctly stated my own misgivings with the Legion, both in praxis and in spirituality. And that is the apparently profound personality cult of Fr. Maciel and the almost Stepfordian attitude of both the clergy in the Legion as well as the laity of Regnum Christi. I have not encountered anything like that even with the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre whom I met on several occasions in my teaching days. I know plenty of former Legion seminarians who feel that way as well.

I am also suspicious of the aura of "orthodoxy" with them, liturgically speaking. It seems the orders which have embraced the Latin Mass have been able to maintain a much more balanced spiritual and theological praxis than the Legion.
FDD