What happened in Soto / Leatherby?

[whichwaytogo47]

Both Leatherby and Soto took vows of obedience. it sounds like Leatherby either was obstinate or is like one of those family members that has to be right (someone that has to win an argument at all costs) that causes him to disobey his Bishop (aka an incompetent priest). Or he’s simply trying to garner attention and that took him away from his priestly duties to serving others.

It sounds like Leatherby committed three acts that led to his excommunication: 1) he had an emotional affair with one or two women, including a married woman, 2) he defied the Bishop of Rome by proclaiming Pope Benedict, and 3) he celebrated mass during a pandemic. The first two seem to be worthy of removing Leatherby from his priestly duties since he’s incompetent at fulfilling them. The third one is a lot more tricky for me since someone ought to disobey an unjust civil authority but at the same time is ordered to obey his bishop. I think he should have been arrested for having mass for 350 people at a home, but that was an act of civil disobedience. Excommunication seems excessive when the only immoral act was not obeying the bishop. It also seems excessive because it’s rare to do.

As a person who’s generally a non-conformist with a neuro-developmental disorder (aka think Asperger’s or PDD-NOS) I work very hard to be in conformity with others, the church, and most importantly, to God. But I sometimes/often struggle to know why it’s important to conform to social norms. Aspegers normally makes you rule-followers, but I struggle emotionally with the why behind rules. Instead of being completely black and white, I am always looking for the grey in things, though many times I think I get the black and white and grey mixed up.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It sounds like for the third issue, the church should have moved him to another bishop or someone he got along better with.

And what bishop could he have been “moved” to, who would tolerate Father Leatherby’s substitution of Benedict’s name in the Canon instead of the name of Francis?

As a person who’s generally a non-conformist with a neuro-developmental disorder, I work very hard to be in conformity with others, the church, and most importantly, to God. But I sometimes/often struggle to know why it’s important to conform to social norms.

I agree. Social norms are not the be-all and end-all of everything — right and wrong are. Good and evil are. True and false are. I do not have any sort of “disorder”, but I myself have found myself in agreement with Asperger people on some matters, such as why it is perceived to be so important, to be able to “read people’s clues”, body language, facial expressions, and other nonverbals, instead of these aggrieved people just coming right out and saying what’s on their minds instead of making their listener guess and possibly guess wrongly.

I suppose I could be characterized as an “Asperger ally”, in that I view AS as in some ways a “bonus” or an “add-on” that is stigmatized by “neuro-normatives” who want to keep running society and controlling social interactions.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

And what bishop could he have been “moved” to, who would tolerate Father Leatherby’s substitution of Benedict’s name in the Canon instead of the name of Francis?

+1 I’d agree that another bishop wouldn’t tolerate the substitution of names, but I wonder if the other bishop might have handled it better.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

I agree. Social norms are not the be-all and end-all of everything — right and wrong are. Good and evil are. True and false are. I do not have any sort of “disorder”, but I myself have found myself in agreement with Asperger people on some matters, such as why it is perceived to be so important, to be able to “read people’s clues”, body language, facial expressions, and other nonverbals, instead of these aggrieved people just coming right out and saying what’s on their minds instead of making their listener guess and possibly guess wrongly.

I suppose I could be characterized as an “Asperger ally”, in that I view AS as in some ways a “bonus” or an “add-on” that is stigmatized by “neuro-normatives” who want to keep running society and controlling social interactions.

I agree. I don’t think those who are neuro-normatives try to adapt their view to help those who don’t see it the same way at face value so that we can be in agreement as to intent and purpose.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I agree. Social norms are not the be-all and end-all of everything — right and wrong are. Good and evil are. True and false are. I do not have any sort of “disorder”, but I myself have found myself in agreement with Asperger people on some matters, such as why it is perceived to be so important, to be able to “read people’s clues”, body language, facial expressions, and other nonverbals, instead of these aggrieved people just coming right out and saying what’s on their minds instead of making their listener guess and possibly guess wrongly.

I suppose I could be characterized as an “Asperger ally”, in that I view AS as in some ways a “bonus” or an “add-on” that is stigmatized by “neuro-normatives” who want to keep running society and controlling social interactions.

I agree. I don’t think those who are neuro-normatives try to adapt their view to help those who don’t see it the same way at face value so that we can be in agreement as to intent and purpose.

That’s on them, not on AS people. We are all supposed to be so “tolerant”, so “nonjudgmental”, in today’s world, then why can’t that social norm extend to endeavoring to see the point of view of people who don’t agree with them? We’re supposed to tolerate different religions, different spiritualities, different sexualities, different everything, why not different ways of thinking and communicating?

De colores!

 

[whichwaytogo47]

That’s on them , not on AS people. We are all supposed to be so “tolerant”, so “nonjudgmental”, in today’s world, then why can’t that social norm extend to endeavoring to see the point of view of people who don’t agree with them? We’re supposed to tolerate different religions, different spiritualities, different sexualities, different everything , why not different ways of thinking and communicating?

Hugs for so kindly responding and understanding.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

That’s on them , not on AS people. We are all supposed to be so “tolerant”, so “nonjudgmental”, in today’s world, then why can’t that social norm extend to endeavoring to see the point of view of people who don’t agree with them? We’re supposed to tolerate different religions, different spiritualities, different sexualities, different everything , why not different ways of thinking and communicating?

Hugs for so kindly responding and understanding.

Anytime, friend. And you might do well to quit thinking of yourself as having a “disorder”. I do not have AS but sometimes I almost find myself wishing I did. AS people who get into some kind of technical field that doesn’t require social interaction can make some serious bank these days. And quite aside from the Benjamins factor, their honesty is refreshing.

 

[babochka]

Excommunication seems excessive when the only immoral act was not obeying the bishop. It also seems excessive because it’s rare to do.

The bishop did not excommunicate Father Leatherby. He incurred an automatic excommunication because of his persistent (and public) denial of Pope Francis. Bishop Soto publicly announced the excommunication because Father Leatherby was leading others into his error. Bishop Soto sent him a private letter prior to the announcement, offering him the opportunity to recant his position and live a life of prayer and penance. Father Leatherby declined and has given his own response, in which he reaffirms that he rejects Pope Francis as a legitimate Pope and does not wish to be in communion with him because it is a false, parallel Church. It does not seem to me that Bishop Soto had much of a choice.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

The bishop did not excommunicate Father Leatherby. He incurred an automatic excommunication because of his persistent (and public) denial of Pope Francis

Thanks for explaining this. I sometimes struggle with why Pope Francis was installed as Pope, but I obey him as my legitimate pope. And outside of his public political views, I really like him as Pope. I could see how Leatherby could lead someone like myself astray as he’s in a position of authority.

Bishop Soto publicly announced the excommunication because Father Leatherby was leading others into his error. Bishop Soto sent him a private letter prior to the announcement, offering him the opportunity to recant his position and live a life of prayer and penance. Father Leatherby declined and has given his own response, in which he reaffirms that he rejects Pope Francis as a legitimate Pope and does not wish to be in communion with him because it is a false, parallel Church. It does not seem to me that Bishop Soto had much of a choice.

Isn’t being defrocked as a priest a step below excommunication? Shouldn’t that be a first step?

Isn’t being defrocked like being fired or resigning from the priesthood? I agree that excommunication may be necessary when a priest or someone else claiming to be a priest is leading others into error away from God. I guess if you’re leading people away from the Bishop of Rome that you’re leading people away from God because Jesus said their would be apostolic succession in HIS church.