SSPX update?

[JReducation]

I am quoting this extract from last week’s eleison comment, having taken a look at the latest called the “Marcellus Initiative”. It has me wondering if my first impression is not perhaps correct, in that Bishop Williamson really has ‘no place to land’?

Between the SSPX and Rome there is something of a No Man’s Land that does not have too many “pockets of Resistance” that he can offer service to. There are the half dozen or so renegade priests who have been expelled from the SSPX and perhaps some other individual traditional priests here and there, but can these be the “whoever” that make up his future support?

It is curious that knowing he was not prepared to fit into either SSPX or Rome, that he did not have plans or the means to establish himself prior to this, and is only now attempting to do so? Something odd about this ‘picture’ as can be seen from the following extracts:

"After last week’s presentation of details of the “Marcellus Initiative” set up to facilitate donations to the cause of an « expelled » bishop, a few readers reasonably asked what the “Initiative” would be for. To begin with, it will cover his personal expenses of moving out of Wimbledon, maybe out of London, and then living elsewhere. Over and above those expenses, the word “Initiative” was chosen deliberately to leave options open. However, it is important that nobody should think that their donations will any time soon go to the setting up of a replacement for the Society of St Pius X or a substitute seminary. There are good reasons for not hurrying to do either."

Having stated that the solution is not to be found with the Church or the SSPX, whose authority he believes is flawed, he goes on to speculate as to how the Pope’s authority could be restored and how he would fit in:
"Thus as God alone could establish Moses’ authority by a sensational chastisement of rebels (cf. Numbers XVI), so in our day surely God alone will be able to restore the Pope’s authority. Will it be by ”a rain of fire”, such as Our Lady of Akita forewarned in Japan in 1973 ? Be that as it may, oases of the Faith remain an immediate and practical possibility, and I will do my best to serve them."

He goes on to say that he will not be using the funding to start up any seminaries, claiming "It is more and more difficult to make Catholic priests out of modern young men, say I."

It appears he is hoping to be the spiritual leader of a new organization
**“Does that mean that God has given up on his Church, or that he means to leave us without priests for tomorrow ? Of course not. But it does mean that no Catholic organisation set up tomorrow to save souls can be allowed to lose its vision of the soul-destroying nature of the Conciliar Church and the modern world.”
**

His conclusions are chilling…
**“By hook or by crook, tomorrow’s Congregations and seminaries must keep their grip on reality, and not get lost in dreams of how “normal” they are, or need to be. Can it be done ? With God’s help, yes. But God is God, and for the salvation of souls tomorrow it may be that he will no longer resort to the classical Congregation or seminary of yesterday. For myself, I shall attempt to follow his Providence in the ordaining of priests - or in the consecrating of bishops. God’s will be done.” **

I believe that I may have misunderstood something here. It seems as if he’s saying that he’s willing to go out an ordain bishops. But if he does that, he will be declared to be in schism. Already, the CDF says that he is not Catholic. The Pope says that he lacks experience living in the Catholic Church. If he ordains bishops it would prove that they are right. Or did I misunderstand something?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

I believe that I may have misunderstood something here. It seems as if he’s saying that he’s willing to go out an ordain bishops. But if he does that, he will be declared to be in schism. Already, the CDF says that he is not Catholic. The Pope says that he lacks experience living in the Catholic Church. If he ordains bishops it would prove that they are right. Or did I misunderstand something?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

No you did not! Yes, he seems quite willing to advertise & go ahead and act as a roving bishop and do just that. He has made clear his refusal to accept the authority of the SSPX or the Holy Father/Church.

He will justify these consecrations of bishops using pretty much the same reasons that Archbishop Lefevbre did in 1988. And will earn himself the same penalty - excommunication.

Well, the obvious (to us) act of schism, did not apply according to the SSPX , and they bitterly reject any reference to themselves at schismatics - as we have seen on many a discussion thread on CAF. Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei said:
"In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4) - but they never accepted that they were in schism, even though it is made clear enough in what the Pope says to the faithful who attend their chapels in the same encyclical:
"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)"
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

I guess it won’t bother him at all

 

[JReducation]

No you did not! Yes, he seems quite willing to advertise & go ahead and act as a roving bishop and do just that. He has made clear his refusal to accept the authority of the SSPX or the Holy Father/Church.

This is dangerous. I hope that once his frustration and feelings about this situation have calmed down, he’ll not go down that road.

"In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3)

but they never accepted that they were in schism,/quote

This is a very important distinction in Roman Law. A schismatic act does not mean that one is in schism.

We’re used to English Law, where anyone who commits treason is charged as a traitor.

Roman Law does not operate this way. Roman Law tries to mitigate culpability and penalties to the bare minimum. When it comes to consequences, Roman Law always goes for the least possible consequences. When it comes to rights, Roman Law goes for the greatest possible rights.

In this case, using my example of treason. In Roman Law you would be charged for having committed a treacherous act. You would not be charged as a traitor. To be charged as a traitor requires an ongoing pernicious series of the same behaviors.

To be in schism, the bishops of the SSPX would have had to continue ordaining bishops. That would be an on-going pernicious series of actions that make it blatantly obvious that they have no intention of remaining within the Catholic Church, but are doing everything they can to build their own apostolic Church. The SSPX has not done this. Therefore, the four bishops and the Archbishop are guilty of having committed a single schismatic action. They are not guilty of ongoing schismatic actions. It’s because of this that the SSPX rightfully denies being in schism, as does the Holy See.

The Holy See views the SSPX as renegade Catholics, not schismatic Catholics. A better way of saying it, they are Catholics who have run a muck. Pope Benedict constantly refers to the the SSPX as being trapped in a ideological framework. What started as a concern for orthodoxy became an ideology. Ideologies can be dangerous. They can have a hypnotic effect on people. Look at these Catholic groups who can’t separate women’s rights from abortion and women’s ordination. The ideology has impaired their critical thinking. The same is true of the other end of the spectrum

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

This is dangerous. I hope that once his frustration and feelings about this situation have calmed down, he’ll not go down that road.

I also hope so. Even though he is a difficult personality, I sense no true malice in him, and know we would all like to see him in ‘safe harbor’.

This is a very important distinction in Roman Law. A schismatic act does not mean that one is in schism.

We’re used to English Law, where anyone who commits treason is charged as a traitor.

Roman Law does not operate this way. Roman Law tries to mitigate culpability and penalties to the bare minimum. When it comes to consequences, Roman Law always goes for the least possible consequences. When it comes to rights, Roman Law goes for the greatest possible rights.

In this case, using my example of treason. In Roman Law you would be charged for having committed a treacherous act. You would not be charged as a traitor. To be charged as a traitor requires an ongoing pernicious series of the same behaviors.

Sorry to show off my ignorance, but could you please explain what Roman Law is? (I’m taking it that it means the rule of law of the Church used in the Vatican or it could be what I know as Roman/Dutch Law as used in the West?) Really not sure what you mean by English Law.. Nevertheless, it sounds very fair and logical BTW.

To be in schism, the bishops of the SSPX would have had to continue ordaining bishops. That would be an on-going pernicious series of actions that make it blatantly obvious that they have no intention of remaining within the Catholic Church, but are doing everything they can to build their own apostolic Church. The SSPX has not done this. Therefore, the four bishops and the Archbishop are guilty of having committed a single schismatic action. They are not guilty of ongoing schismatic actions. It’s because of this that the SSPX rightfully denies being in schism, as does the Holy See.

The Holy See views the SSPX as renegade Catholics, not schismatic Catholics. A better way of saying it, they are Catholics who have run a muck. Pope Benedict constantly refers to the the SSPX as being trapped in a ideological framework. What started as a concern for orthodoxy became an ideology. Ideologies can be dangerous. They can have a hypnotic effect on people. Look at these Catholic groups who can’t separate women’s rights from abortion and women’s ordination. The ideology has impaired their critical thinking. The same is true of the other end of the spectrum

Fraternally, Br. JR, FFV

This is the best explanation I have ever heard:yeah_me: and taken in the context of the Roman Law you applied, it certainly settles the question of schism effectively.

 

[JReducation]

I also hope so. Even though he is a difficult personality, I sense no true malice in him, and know we would all like to see him in ‘safe harbor’.

Sorry to show off my ignorance, but could you please explain what Roman Law is? (I’m taking it that it means the rule of law of the Church used in the Vatican or it could be what I know as Roman/Dutch Law as used in the West?) Really not sure what you mean by English Law.. Nevertheless, it sounds very fair and logical BTW.

This is the best explanation I have ever heard:yeah_me: and taken in the context of the Roman Law you applied, it certainly settles the question of schism effectively.

Canon Law is very ancient. At the time that the Church started to codify law, the only legal system that Europe knew what the Roman system or the system used by the Romans, which is very similar to that of the Greeks. It’s a way of looking a individuals and their rights and duties.

English Law, as the term properly says, is born in England. This model of law was adopted throughout the British colonies, including the USA. It has a different approach to looking at the individual, his rights and duties. With the passing of time and the evolution of culture, the former English colonies tweaked how they carried out the law. For example, in the USA we have trial by jury, not so in other former English colonies. But the philosophy that drives the law is the same. The law exists to protect the common good.

This is the difference between English Law and Roman Law. In Roman Law, the law exists to protect the individual.

For example, in English Law, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Whereas in Roman Law, ignorance of the law is the best excuse.

The best scenario where this plays out is in pastoral work people who engage in abortion. This happens to be the forte of the Franciscans of Life. Canon Law says that abortion carries an automatic penalty of excommunication for those who are formally involved. However, to be excommunicated, one must know that this is the penalty before one commits the crime, not after the fact. Most of the people whom we serve cannot be excommunicated, because they’re not Catholics. You can only excommunicate Catholics. Here is an example of the law protecting the individual. Non-Catholics are actually protected by Canon Law in the sense that Canon Law admits that the Church has no authority over them. Next. many Catholics who engage in abortion do not know that it carries a penalty of excommunication. The probability of incurring an excommunication is very small. The Church does not impose penalties for breaking laws that you didn’t know existed. Again, we see that Roman mindset. Protect the individual.

This does not mean that the person is not guilty of grave sin. That’'s another question for the Moral Theology thread.

My example was to help you and other see how Roman Law differs from English Law.

In the case of the SSPX, everyone involved in the ordination of the four bishops had been warned that such an ordination carried a penalty of automatic excommunication. Put another way, “If you violate this law, you excommunicate yourselves.”

Needless to say, the Holy See wrote those memos out of charity. Anyone who has been through seminary knows these laws. There was not way around it. They committed a schismatic act. The penalty for this particular act is excommunication. Only the pope can lift that penalty, which he did.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[triumphguy]

I never thought I’d say this Brother… but you’re wrong

Actually the British Common Law system developed and spread trial by jury, it’s not an American tweak. It started with the nobles wanting to be judged by their peers back in Norman times, and gradually spread so that all classes of society would be judged by their peers - twelve good men and true.

 

[JReducation]

I never thought I’d say this Brother… but you’re wrong

Actually the British Common Law system developed and spread trial by jury, it’s not an American tweak. It started with the nobles wanting to be judged by their peers back in Norman times, and gradually spread so that all classes of society would be judged by their peers - twelve good men and true.

I didn’t know this. I had always heard that this was so special to Americans. Thanks for the education.

Our teachers should stop bragging about all the great things that we never did. It was only after high school that I learned that Columbus was not the first European to reach the Americas.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

Look at these Catholic groups who can’t separate women’s rights from abortion and women’s ordination. The ideology has impaired their critical thinking. The same is true of the other end of the spectrum.

Unfortunately the group who support Obama, abortion and same sex marriage seem to be dominant in much of the country now. I think that these heterodox Catholics who oppose Catholic moral teachings- who as a group contributed significantly to reelecting Obama- are far more dangerous to the Church, if only because there numbers are so much greater. In trying to fit in with the liberal secularists, many of these folks wind up becoming liberal secularists. They still call themselves “Catholic” however, thus completely misrepresenting the Church and its teachings and sowing doubt and confusion in their efforts to be “progressive.”

 

[Dee_S]

In the latest news regarding the SSPX, Fr Rostand District Superior of the US is erroneously slating Cardinal Koch for his recent statements regarding the problem of anti-semiticism in the ranks of the SSPX. He accuses him of defamy - when there is no real proof of it. Stirring the pot…very unwise & unnecessary at the present time as the world waits for Bishop Fellay’s response.

**“Cardinal Koch’s false charge of anti-Semitism within our religious congregation casts the SSPX in a negative light and at a very sensitive time for the entire church,” Father Rostand said. “Furthermore, our legal counsel has suggested that His Eminence’s accusation is tantamount to defamation, since it insinuates that our society is a racist organization.” **
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204778.htm

Taking a look at the CNS article** Vatican-SSPX talks do not signal toleration of anti-Judaism **this is what was actually said:

"The effort to reintegrate the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X into the Catholic Church “absolutely does not mean” that the Catholic Church will accept or support the anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic positions espoused by some members of the society, said Cardinal Kurt Koch."
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204690.htm

** In the May 2012 CNS article, US**** superior of SSPX denies group is anti-Semitic, ****** Bishop Fellay said the following:** **

In 2009, after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of all four of the society’s bishops, there was widespread outrage at revelations that one of the four, Bishop Richard Williamson, had denied the gassing of Jews in Nazi concentration camps and endorsed the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

The society’s superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, repudiated those statements at the time, saying that “anti-Semitism has no place in our ranks” and that the "position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our society."

**"The topic (of the Jews) is very, very delicate, very delicate, and should be handled with the greatest care," the bishop added. "We don't want at all to provoke and to make unnecessary turmoil in the world."**

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm

It’s a pity that Fr Rostand does not adopt this position! Instead of provoking the situation as seen from this extract on World Jewish Congress:

**"When the decision to expel Williamson was announced, World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder called it "too little too late." He said: "The reasons now given [by the SSPX leadership] for Williamson’s dismissal do not mention the damage this man has caused by spreading invective against Jews and others, be it from the pulpit, via his weekly newsletter and in his statements to the media.” Lauder said that although not all members of the SSPX were anti-Semites like Williamson, the group had yet to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism in its ranks and part ways with those “who continue to regard the Jews as the embodiment of the anti-Christ.” **
Other SSPX clerics also made anti-Jewish statements in the past. In a 1997 article for the SSPX monthly ‘The Angelus’, the priests Michael Crowdy and Kenneth Novak called for locking Jews into ghettos because “Jews are known to kill Christians.” It also blamed Jews for the French Revolution, communism and capitalism and suggests a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy had destroyed the Catholic Church. The article described Judaism as “inimical to all nations.”
worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/12623/pius_brotherhood_leader_rejects_charges_of_anti_semitism_as_defamation_

 

[JReducation]

In the latest news regarding the SSPX, Fr Rostand District Superior of the US is erroneously slating Cardinal Koch for his recent statements regarding the problem of anti-semiticism in the ranks of the SSPX. He accuses him of defamy - when there is no real proof of it.

“Cardinal Koch’s false charge of anti-Semitism within our religious congregation casts the SSPX in a negative light and at a very sensitive time for the entire church,” Father Rostand said.

This is a major problem right here. First, the Cardinal his Jewish. The last thing you want to do is to take on a Jewish cardinal. Second, the SSPX superiors needed to deal with those who made such statements at the time they were made.

Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Jesuits, and others have expelled men from their ranks or transferred to to Siberia and other unknown parts of the galaxy for making antisemitic remarks. The authorities in the SSPX did nothing until Pope Benedict got angry and called Bishop Williamson and antisemite.

Here is where I have a serious problem with SSPX people. Why SSPX exempt from doing what every other society of apostolic life, every religious order, every secular order and every secular institute has been obliged to do?

“Furthermore, our legal counsel has suggested that His Eminence’s accusation is tantamount to defamation, since it insinuates that our society is a racist organization.”

Legal counsel? They’re in the middle of negotiations with Rome and they’re calling lawyer on a cardinal of the Roman curia? What are they thinking?

"The effort to reintegrate the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X into the Catholic Church “absolutely does not mean” that the Catholic Church will accept or support the anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic positions espoused by some members of the society, said Cardinal Kurt Koch."

He’s repeating what Pope Benedict said in Light of The World. “I will never introduce antisemites into polite society.”

** In the May 2012 CNS article, US**** superior of SSPX denies group is anti-Semitic, ****** Bishop Fellay said the following:****

No one said that they were.

In 2009, after Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of all four of the society’s bishops, there was widespread outrage at revelations that one of the four, Bishop Richard Williamson, had denied the gassing of Jews in Nazi concentration camps and endorsed the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

The society’s superior general, Bishop Bernard Fellay, repudiated those statements at the time, saying that “anti-Semitism has no place in our ranks” and that the "position of Bishop Williamson is clearly not the position of our society."

He did say this. But Williamson also thumbed his nose at the idea of an apology.

**"The topic (of the Jews) is very, very delicate, very delicate, and should be handled with the greatest care," the bishop added. "We don't want at all to provoke and to make unnecessary turmoil in the world."**

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201985.htm

No Your Excellency, the topic of the Jews has been settled by the Magisterium and your Society refuses to accept it. “The Jews cannot be held culpable for the death of Christ.” This is a mandate from the Magisterium.

"When the decision to expel Williamson was announced, World Jewish Congress President Ronald S. Lauder called it "too little too late." He said: "The reasons now given [by the SSPX leadership] for Williamson’s dismissal do not mention the damage this man has caused by spreading invective against Jews and others, be it from the pulpit, via his weekly newsletter and in his statements to the media.” Lauder said that although not all members of the SSPX were anti-Semites like Williamson, the group had yet to deal with the issue of anti-Semitism in its ranks and part ways with those “who continue to regard the Jews as the embodiment of the anti-Christ.”

I said the same thing. He’s right. Bishop Williamson and others were wrong and there was little intervention done. On the other hand, we Jews have to develop tougher skin. We have to stop expecting the world to be sensitive to our plight. Human beings are growing more callous each day. If we continue to be hypersensitve, we’ll have to move to another planet.

Other SSPX clerics also made anti-Jewish statements in the past. In a 1997 article for the SSPX monthly ‘The Angelus’, the priests Michael Crowdy and Kenneth Novak called for locking Jews into ghettos because “Jews are known to kill Christians.” It also blamed Jews for the French Revolution, communism and capitalism and suggests a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy had destroyed the Catholic Church. The article described Judaism as “inimical to all nations.”
worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/12623/pius_brotherhood_leader_rejects_charges_of_anti_semitism_as_defamation_

This goes to the extreme of seeing conspiracies around every corner. It’s the Catholic version of McCarthyism. It should be taken with the same attitude. We all know that some people are not well wrapped. They’re a little kooky. But who of us is not just a little paranoid?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t see anti-Semitism being any more prevalent among the SSPX rank and file as I see it being prevalent among other Catholics- let alone among fundamentalist Protestants. I think that the final statement by Fr. Rostand is most telling: "In his statement to CNS, Father Rostand said hopes that the Jews would convert “to the one true faith are motivated by supernatural charity, not hatred.”

There is certainly nothing wrong with hoping that Jews convert, or with evangelizing Jews. This has been the hope and the practice since St. Peter.

 

[severus68]

I never thought I’d say this Brother… but you’re wrong

Actually the British Common Law system developed and spread trial by jury, it’s not an American tweak. It started with the nobles wanting to be judged by their peers back in Norman times, and gradually spread so that all classes of society would be judged by their peers - twelve good men and true.

That’s correct.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

The matter will be resolved as soon as SSPX leaders learn to practice the holy virtues of humility and obedience…

Oh Please…read a little of what the SSPX has to say…I am, ofcourse assuming that you haven’t …in the event you have…then I respectfully suggest you re-read their stand…whether you agree or not…please don’t accuse these individuals of not being obedient…and humilty …well…res ipsa liquitor

 

[triumphguy]

That’s correct.

Why thank you. My law degree finally paid off

Thinking about it: the “grand jury” is now unique to the USA though even that originated in the UK with Norman Law (“grand” for “large” rather than “important” since there were more jurors in it than the “petite” jury used at trial).

 

[CesarAugustus]

This is a major problem right here. First, the Cardinal his Jewish. The last thing you want to do is to take on a Jewish cardinal. Second, the SSPX superiors needed to deal with those who made such statements at the time they were made.

Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Jesuits, and others have expelled men from their ranks or transferred to to Siberia and other unknown parts of the galaxy for making antisemitic remarks. The authorities in the SSPX did nothing until Pope Benedict got angry and called Bishop Williamson and antisemite.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Really? they are so efficient regarding that topic? I wish then that more people would be expelled for pro-abortion, and heretical remarks. For example, there is a well known Jesuit Priest in my country that appears frequently in TV, saying that Pius XII and John Paul II magisterium allows abortion, attacking pro-life Catholic politicians, saying that life is a gift from humanity and not from God… and his superiors haven’t done anything. Even a Bishop from another city has expressed his concerns regarding that. And, he still has his place as a teacher in a Jesuit University. And he is not the only one. I’m just tired of the chaos over here… ha, and the atheists and liberals in my country think we are living in a very conservative and Catholic country.

But, I don’t know how Law works in cases like that. But seriously, if orders and congregations are expelling and transferring people that have said antisemitic remarks, people that have said heretical teachings should be dealt in a similar way too.

Blessings.

 

[JReducation]

Really? they are so efficient regarding that topic? I wish then that more people would be expelled for pro-abortion, and heretical remarks. For example, there is a well known Jesuit Priest in my country that appears frequently in TV, saying that Pius XII and John Paul II magisterium allows abortion, attacking pro-life Catholic politicians, saying that life is a gift from humanity and not from God… and his superiors haven’t done anything. Even a Bishop from another city has expressed his concerns regarding that. And, he still has his place as a teacher in a Jesuit University. And he is not the only one. I’m just tired of the chaos over here… ha, and the atheists and liberals in my country think we are living in a very conservative and Catholic country.

But, I don’t know how Law works in cases like that. But seriously, if orders and congregations are expelling and transferring people that have said antisemitic remarks, people that have said heretical teachings should be dealt in a similar way too.

Blessings.

Something got lost in the translation, because neither pope said such a thing. Evangelium Vitate invokes apostolic authority condemning abortion in any circumstance, no exceptions. Canon Law of 1983 condemns it, no exceptions

As to the transfers, if you’re dealing with a Jesuit who teaches at a Jesuit university or other university, there is little that a superior can do. The individual works for the university. The superior certainly has the right to call him in, but he does not have the authority to pull him from the university. There are all kinds of legal contracts that tie their hands.

The situation with antisemitism is different. Universities don’t tolerate antisemitism. The university can initiate the action to terminate the individual professor. From there, the superior takes over.

This has become a very important concern, because the Holy Father himself has become involved in it. He is not dismissing people, but he is very clear that antisemites cannot be introduced into polite company. From the mind of the Holy See this is problem that has multiple levels. It’s a moral problem. It’s a social problem. It undermines the pope’s personal ministry in ecumenism. This has been his apostolate for 25 or more years. For many years, he headed it. You just don’t throw in a monkey wrench into the work of the Holy See without consequences.

In both situations, abortion and holocaust, it is one thing to dissent in a contained situation and quite another to dissent in front of the whole world. The response is going to be proportionate. The dissent is always out of order. The intensity and the situation influences the disciplinary action.

In my community, as Franciscans of Life, I tolerate neither dissent. Anything that is contrary to the dignity of life is contrary to our vocation. There is no discussion other than a warning or two.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mike30]

Something got lost in the translation, because neither pope said such a thing. Evangelium Vitate invokes apostolic authority condemning abortion in any circumstance, no exceptions. Canon Law of 1983 condemns it, no exceptions

As to the transfers, if you’re dealing with a Jesuit who teaches at a Jesuit university or other university, there is little that a superior can do. The individual works for the university. The superior certainly has the right to call him in, but he does not have the authority to pull him from the university. There are all kinds of legal contracts that tie their hands.

The situation with antisemitism is different. Universities don’t tolerate antisemitism. The university can initiate the action to terminate the individual professor. From there, the superior takes over.

This has become a very important concern, because the Holy Father himself has become involved in it. He is not dismissing people, but he is very clear that antisemites cannot be introduced into polite company. From the mind of the Holy See this is problem that has multiple levels. It’s a moral problem. It’s a social problem. It undermines the pope’s personal ministry in ecumenism. This has been his apostolate for 25 or more years. For many years, he headed it. You just don’t throw in a monkey wrench into the work of the Holy See without consequences.

In both situations, abortion and holocaust, it is one thing to dissent in a contained situation and quite another to dissent in front of the whole world. The response is going to be proportionate. The dissent is always out of order. The intensity and the situation influences the disciplinary action.

In my community, as Franciscans of Life, I tolerate neither dissent. Anything that is contrary to the dignity of life is contrary to our vocation. There is no discussion other than a warning or two.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

The offending Priest or Brother could be dismissed from the Society if memory serves me correctly if he espouses things that are contrary to Church discipline, doctrine and dogma. Also he could be censured and silenced by the Society as I recall. The problem is and has been for a number of years that certain religious feel that they have the absolute right to pick and choose which disciplines, doctrine and dogmas they will accept, support and believe in. Without naming any names or implicating the entire order, certain Jesuits have over the years made a virtual cottage industry of challenging Church doctrine, dogma, discipline and beliefs with relative impunity. I remember well the hubbub that followed the issuance of Humanae Vitae what with petitions and even newspaper advertisements being taken out in opposition to it. Or more recently look at some of the statements of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious concerning their views.

While in your community dissent may not be tolerated, it certainly appears that in other orders, communities and socities it is accepted, tolerated and maybe even encouraged.

 

[JReducation]

The offending Priest or Brother could be dismissed from the Society if memory serves me correctly if he espouses things that are contrary to Church discipline, doctrine and dogma. Also he could be censured and silenced by the Society as I recall. The problem is and has been for a number of years that certain religious feel that they have the absolute right to pick and choose which disciplines, doctrine and dogmas they will accept, support and believe in. Without naming any names or implicating the entire order, certain Jesuits have over the years made a virtual cottage industry of challenging Church doctrine, dogma, discipline and beliefs with relative impunity. I remember well the hubbub that followed the issuance of Humanae Vitae what with petitions and even newspaper advertisements being taken out in opposition to it. Or more recently look at some of the statements of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious concerning their views.

While in your community dissent may not be tolerated, it certainly appears that in other orders, communities and socities it is accepted, tolerated and maybe even encouraged.

Unfortunately, humanity is tainted by Original Sin and all its concomitant ramifications. The one thing that is most effective here is to follow the advice of the Spiritual Masters: Benedict, Francis, Thomas A Kempis, Teresa of Avila and Teresa of Calcutta.

Their advice was to pray for the world. Look only for the good in the other person and learn from it. Look only for sin and evil only in yourself. The Spirit of God will come to rest in a soul that is silent and detached. While it may seem to us that it is less virtuous, the truth is that there is greater virtue in the cultivation of such discipline said Teresa of Avila.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[CesarAugustus]

Something got lost in the translation, because neither pope said such a thing. Evangelium Vitate invokes apostolic authority condemning abortion in any circumstance, no exceptions. Canon Law of 1983 condemns it, no exceptions

As to the transfers, if you’re dealing with a Jesuit who teaches at a Jesuit university or other university, there is little that a superior can do. The individual works for the university. The superior certainly has the right to call him in, but he does not have the authority to pull him from the university. There are all kinds of legal contracts that tie their hands.

The situation with antisemitism is different. Universities don’t tolerate antisemitism. The university can initiate the action to terminate the individual professor. From there, the superior takes over.

This has become a very important concern, because the Holy Father himself has become involved in it. He is not dismissing people, but he is very clear that antisemites cannot be introduced into polite company. From the mind of the Holy See this is problem that has multiple levels. It’s a moral problem. It’s a social problem. It undermines the pope’s personal ministry in ecumenism. This has been his apostolate for 25 or more years. For many years, he headed it. You just don’t throw in a monkey wrench into the work of the Holy See without consequences.

In both situations, abortion and holocaust, it is one thing to dissent in a contained situation and quite another to dissent in front of the whole world. The response is going to be proportionate. The dissent is always out of order. The intensity and the situation influences the disciplinary action.

In my community, as Franciscans of Life, I tolerate neither dissent. Anything that is contrary to the dignity of life is contrary to our vocation. There is no discussion other than a warning or two.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, I know. He was lying to the public. Anyone could check the documents. He has appeared lots of times in TV, supposedly, to represent Church’s position (he is asked to speak everytime the channel wants to show Catholic opinion on something polemic). He has written horrible things in newspapers. And still, nothing. And obviously, he is outside the Bishop’s jurisdiction. He is responsability of his Superiors, but they haven’t done anything. (he has more than one year of public dissent and lies in media). Is so frustrating that various Priests (even a couple of Bishops) have said terrible things in public, and are still in their Parishes and Dioceses. And beyond polemic topics like abortion and homosexuality, we have the typical liturgical abuses, dissent in basic doctrine, etc. Is so tiring.

Blessings.

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, I know. He was lying to the public. Anyone could check the documents. He has appeared lots of times in TV, supposedly, to represent Church’s position (he is asked to speak everytime the channel wants to show Catholic opinion on something polemic). He has written horrible things in newspapers. And still, nothing. And obviously, he is outside the Bishop’s jurisdiction. He is responsability of his Superiors, but they haven’t done anything. (he has more than one year of public dissent and lies in media). Is so frustrating that various Priests (even a couple of Bishops) have said terrible things in public, and are still in their Parishes and Dioceses. And beyond polemic topics like abortion and homosexuality, we have the typical liturgical abuses, dissent in basic doctrine, etc. Is so tiring.

Blessings.

Yes it’s bad enough when lay Catholics who are poorly catechized think that they are above Church teachings on matters such as abortion and same sex “marriage.” When those who are supposed to be leaders and exemplars in the Catholic Church espouse and promote heterodoxy, it is downright discouraging. I believe that the “progressives” who have used Vatican II as an excuse for all sorts of abuses and blasphemies- who in many dioceses seem to run the show- are a far greater danger to the Church than half a million traditionalists who would come back tomorrow if those at the top could just hug it out.