Church accused of using FBI-style tactics to watch and silence priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Corki said:
The linked articles states that Father Egan’s remarks were in the context of support for Father Flannery who was recently silenced by the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Yes, he said he felt Fr. Flannery should not have been silenced. That’s not the same as agreeing with what he wrote.
Some of Father Flannery’s work has included preaching in opposition to the Church’s stance on contraception and supporting women’s ordination. Those are both doctrinal teachings on faith and morals.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that since those two points are “only” doctrinal teaching and not dogmas, that there is no disobedience involved?
Click to expand...
Once again, saying that you don’t think someone should be silence is different from agreeing with what they are saying. Secondly, the article makes absolutely no mention of any of Fr. Flannery’s positions on any faith/moral issue so I am unable to know what he has or hasn’t dissented on.
The article does mention support for Fr. Flannery’s support of “open public debates” on certain issues but that could mean a lot of things.
 
JackyB said:
Timing is everything, and there couldn’t be a better time for a priest to be imprudent or immature or whatever other excuse you can come up with for sowing more turmoil in a country which was once so strongly catholic.
Click to expand...
The turmoil already exists.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Once again, saying that you don’t think someone should be silence is different from agreeing with what they are saying. Secondly, the article makes absolutely no mention of any of Fr. Flannery’s positions on any faith/moral issue so I am unable to know what he has or hasn’t dissented on.
The article does mention support for Fr. Flannery’s support of “open public debates” on certain issues but that could mean a lot of things.
Click to expand...
The rest of us here on this thread have been able to put 2 and 2 together and come up with a consensus.

If the following quoted words are truly Fr. Egan`s:
…dismayed, flabbergasted, shocked and amazed…
i bet he was. After all, the dissenters have had a free run for years.
It doesnt sit well in todays culture…
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)
He (Tony) is articulating what he is hearing on the coal-face from ordinary people.
Thankfully, unlike most of Protestantism, the Church isnt a democracy. She was founded by God, Himself. Theres no higher Authority, in spite of what Old Nick would like us to think.
He certainly has my support !] and Id be surprised if he doesnt have** the support of the vast majority of his colleagues and of the congregation.**
Sadly, this is probably only too true.
…true to the spirit of the Gospel.
A standard “progressive” term.
ETC.
Click to expand...
then i reckon we can say: “Guilty beyond reasonable doubt”.
NewEnglandPriest said:
The turmoil already exists.
Click to expand...
And fuel has been added to the fire by the dissenters and their supporters.

Fr. Flannery`s known dissenting opinions probably indicate even deeper ones. What other Faith and Morals Church teachings does he reject…?
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Unless he’s violated a particular discipline of the Church then he’s accepted the discipline. He’s free to hold the opinion that any discipline should be changed.

Nothing in this thread has pointed out any disobedience. And nothing in this thread shows he’s opposed to any teaching of faith or morals, so it would be a mistake to extrapolate from that some kind of permission to disagree with dogma.
Click to expand...
That is not the point. The fact that a member of the clergy argues / debates (whatever), against disciplines within their church i.e. the CC, is enough to bolster lukewarm catholics to question teachings of the CC, too.

The fact whether the points raised by the clergy are disciplines or doctrines will be meaningless to poorly catechised catholics. If they see their priests criticising the church regarding the discipline of celibacy, it follows that they will assume the right to criticise too, particularly areas that directly affect ‘their’ lifestyles, i.e. contraception.
 
👍
trials said:
Agree totally. The dissenters are calling for freedom of expression, but don’t seem to understand that we cannot have our priests preaching several different “opinions” each believing they are equally right, especially when those opinions go against Church teaching on morals, priestly celibacy, women priests, etc. What happens to the Church then?

Unfortunately the priests in my country (Ireland) have a serious lack of catechesis regarding the importance of Magisterial teaching. Obedience seems to have got lost along the way, and egos have become inflated, as priests apparently outdo each other in an attempt to get their name mentioned or book published with their latest critical attack on the Church or controversial opinion on Church teaching. Pray for us.
Click to expand...
👍
 
google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFgQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breakingnews.ie%2Fireland%2Fpriests-warn-vatican-over-move-to-censor-flannery-546791.html&ei=QheET4XKGpKAhQeG9ezgCA&usg=AFQjCNH82_qlILeN8eAYO-TccosDxk0P_g&sig2=N3KwZGSlZrtKI3v6zrwv2w

what archbishop actually said, reading the article gives the impression that the archbishop is saying something different,
“I am not saying we are going out heresy hunting but what we should be doing is carrying on a dialogue with the theological community, also in sharpening the reflection that is there and in addressing areas that may go beyond what is really acceptable within the realm of Catholic theology.”
Click to expand...
 
Vatican gag order under fire from 800 priests

independent.ie/national-news/vatican-gag-order-under-fire-from-800-priests-3075064.html

And it continues…

*The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) said the intervention by the Vatican against Fr Tony Flannery was ill-advised and said it could exacerbate the perceived “disconnect” between the Irish church and Rome.

Fr Flannery, a founding member of the association established less than two years ago, has had his column with the religious magazine ‘Reality’ discontinued after the Vatican stepped in. In its statement, the ACP said it was “disturbed” Fr Flannery was “being silenced”.

“We affirm in the strongest possible terms our . . . solidarity with Fr Flannery and wish to make clear our view that this intervention is unfair, unwarranted and unwise.”*
 
Fiasco said:
The rest of us here on this thread have been able to put 2 and 2 together and come up with a consensus.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we don’t necessarily have the 2 and 2 to put together. I’m going only off of the link in this thread. Based on that alone I have no idea what the priest’s opinions actually are.
Fr. Flannery`s known dissenting opinions probably indicate even deeper ones. What other Faith and Morals Church teachings does he reject…?
Click to expand...
What dissenting opinions? Celibacy? That’s an area anyone is free to have an opinion.
 
pepipop said:
Vatican gag order under fire from 800 priests

And it continues…

“We affirm in the strongest possible terms our . . . solidarity with Fr Flannery and wish to make clear our view that this intervention is unfair, unwarranted and unwise.”
Click to expand...
Let it continue. The Church has weathered almost 2,000 years of persecution, heresy, schism, and everything else which has been hurled at her. A pack of individuals acting like silly spoilt schoolboys won`t bring her down.

Insect pests are annoying, but they`re not fatal. Actually, they make some of us just that much more determined to defend the Truth. 👍
 
pepipop said:
That is not the point. The fact that a member of the clergy argues / debates (whatever), against disciplines within their church i.e. the CC, is enough to bolster lukewarm catholics to question teachings of the CC, too.
Click to expand...
Disciplines are open to question.
The fact whether the points raised by the clergy are disciplines or doctrines will be meaningless to poorly catechised catholics. If they see their priests criticising the church regarding the discipline of celibacy, it follows that they will assume the right to criticise too, particularly areas that directly affect ‘their’ lifestyles, i.e. contraception.
Click to expand...
Obviously prudence should be used at all times no matter what we’re dealing with. However, we shouldn’t accuse someone of rejecting doctrine if all they are doing is having a legitimate opinion about discipline.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
The problem is that we don’t necessarily have the 2 and 2 to put together. I’m going only off of the link in this thread. Based on that alone I have no idea what the priest’s opinions actually are.

What dissenting opinions? Celibacy? That’s an area anyone is free to have an opinion.
Click to expand...
actually i have heard one of his sermons. women priest gay marriage. i can’t remeber what else it was a while ago. i have been trying to find the article in the local papers at the time because he reiterated them in papers that week.
local paper was the Argus in dundalk.
st gereard’s novena so that would make it october, unfortunaly can’t remember 09 or 2010and yes i am one of those fbi agents refered to. although in the article he said his sermon was well recieved except for some who misunderstood it, then repeated the basis of his sermon:shrug:
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
The problem is that we don’t necessarily have the 2 and 2 to put together. I’m going only off of the link in this thread. Based on that alone I have no idea what the priest’s opinions actually are.
Click to expand...
Its quite easy to come to the correct conclusion. The evidence for "Guilty" is overwhelming. i couldve quoted more of Fr. Egan, but being a lousy typist, i considered the quotes made to be sufficient. Still do. Dissent has its own odour, and there`s more than just a whiff of it in that article.
What dissenting opinions? Celibacy? That’s an area anyone is free to have an opinion.
Click to expand...
Why mention celibacy? i certainly wasnt referring to that! The rest of us here know the difference between disciplines and the Churchs infallible teachings on Faith and Morals, so that trick doesn`t work!

The dissenting opinion re “priestesses” is a good one to start with. He doesn`t even understand the nature of the sacramental priesthood! Not a promising start!

The ironic thing about some of these people is that when they have all of the power, they dont hesitate to use it against anyone who tries to pull them up; but when the boots on the other foot, they scream blue murder!
 
i deleted my post as i am starting to doubt myself on the actual priest involved apologies.
if i find the article i will post a link
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Yes, he said he felt Fr. Flannery should not have been silenced. That’s not the same as agreeing with what he wrote.

Once again, saying that you don’t think someone should be silence is different from agreeing with what they are saying. Secondly, the article makes absolutely no mention of any of Fr. Flannery’s positions on any faith/moral issue so I am unable to know what he has or hasn’t dissented on.
The article does mention support for Fr. Flannery’s support of “open public debates” on certain issues but that could mean a lot of things.
Click to expand...
When I looked for more on Fr. Flannery, this is what I found.
Fr Flannery has written several books and been a vocal critic of the Church’s opposition to artificial contraception, the ordination of women, and celibacy.
Click to expand...
irishexaminer.com/ireland/silenced-priest-receives-global-support-189765.html

Now, I don’t know how reliable the Irish Examiner is but this article is one of the calmer reports on Fr. Egan’s defense of Fr. Flannery.

I am all for open debate on disciplinary subjects but I thought that the ordination of women and the use of artificial contraception were not open for debate, especially publically by clergy. 🤷 Are you taking the position that these are still open subjects or that, because they are not dogmatic proclamations, that Fr. Flannery has done nothing wrong?
 
Fiasco said:
Its quite easy to come to the correct conclusion. The evidence for "Guilty" is overwhelming. i couldve quoted more of Fr. Egan, but being a lousy typist, i considered the quotes made to be sufficient. Still do. Dissent has its own odour, and there`s more than just a whiff of it in that article.
Click to expand...
Overwhelming? Maybe but its nowhere in this thread. (corrected, post after your’s presents first evidence)
Why mention celibacy? i certainly wasnt referring to that! The rest of us here know the difference between disciplines and the Churchs infallible teachings on Faith and Morals, so that trick doesn`t work!
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a trick, it’s been brought up in several posts in this thread.
The dissenting opinion re “priestesses” is a good one to start with. He doesn`t even understand the nature of the sacramental priesthood! Not a promising start!
Click to expand...
Once again, I don’t see his writings/opinions on this issue in the thread or the original link so I will refrain from accusing him of something I have no proof of.
The ironic thing about some of these people is that when they have all of the power, they dont hesitate to use it against anyone who tries to pull them up; but when the boots on the other foot, they scream blue murder!
Click to expand...
Well, I think that goes for most people…
 
Corki said:
When I looked for more on Fr. Flannery, this is what I found.
Fr Flannery has written several books and been a vocal critic of the Church’s opposition to artificial contraception, the ordination of women, and celibacy.
Click to expand...
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for that. Of course, one of those he’s free to disagree with (celibacy). As to the others, yes, he is not free to disagree. I haven’t seen his writings on those things, but if the news outlet is correct then he’d indeed be subject to possible penalties. How wise those penalties are, however, would be a legitimate issue of debate.
I am all for open debate on disciplinary subjects but I thought that the ordination of women and the use of artificial contraception were not open for debate, especially publically by clergy. 🤷 Are you taking the position that these are still open subjects or that, because they are not dogmatic proclamations, that Fr. Flannery has done nothing wrong?
Click to expand...
I don’t know exactly in what context Fr. Flannery called for public debate on those matters. However, as a matter of principle, I’m always open to debate since I think it helps to clarify the Church’s position and expose the errors of dissent. Truth should never be afraid to confront error.
Click to expand...
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Overwhelming? Maybe but its nowhere in this thread. (corrected, post after your’s presents first evidence)
Click to expand...
The whole of that article reeks of it.
It wasn’t a trick, it’s been brought up in several posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
Only leading towards more troubling opinions, though…i think…?
Once again, I don’t see his writings/opinions on this issue in the thread or the original link so I will refrain from accusing him of something I have no proof of.
Click to expand...
Women`s “ordination” has been mentioned a number of times on this thread.
Well, I think that goes for most people…
Click to expand...
In this case, its the blatant **hypocrisy.** Theyre quite happy to run over and bury their opponents, but any sign of a fightback, and they scream “Unfair!!!”. Theyre happy to dish it out, but they dont have the backbone to endure some of the same.

What`s good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top