Jury finds [SSPX] church liable for slander, distress

We're talking about morality here, not the legal codes of France. Moral culpability is greatly diminished when the evil consequences of an action was never intended. That's simply moral theology. The priest should have known better--which makes his decision a failure in judgment and that is all. Yes, it's sad. Yes, the parents have every right to feel embittered by his stupidity. Yes, the kids were victims of colossal carelessness. But when all is said and done, the priest was not evil, just unwise.

Not only this, but what individual priests do and don't do has never been the issue to begin with in this discussion. It is not the fact of his priesthood that makes a story of minor or greater importance, but rather whether or not the priest's behavior indicates in some way a moral weakness in the institution itself of which he is a part. It is this aspect of the priest's misbehavior which the enemies of the SSPX have failed to prove.

In the case of the sex abuse scandals in the American Church, the failures of so many priests and the involvement of two-thirds of all the bishops, clearly indicates systemic corruption at the highest levels, even reaching to Rome. In the case of this SSPX priest, nothing is indicated whatsoever about the Society itself. There was no rash of boys drowning because of bad decisions by priests. In fact, there were no similar incidents whatsoever. It was an isolated and regrettable event--but it indicated nothing morally as far as the SSPX itself goes.

"It is this aspect of the priest's misbehavior which the enemies of the SSPX have failed to prove."

The fact that you and others believe this article and others is a deliberate attempt to discredit the SSPX and that they/we? are "enemies of the SSPX" tells a lot by itself.

Suspecting motives is never a good idea. If the SSPX were truly concerned about "the entire Church," then she would do her work within the Church rather than outside of her and subject herself to the Church's governance, rather than to her own judgments. This is simple Catholicism--no matter how complicated the situation. The history of the Church and of saints is full of examples of unjust treatment of saints by superiors (or 'apparent' unjust treatment). In nearly all of these cases, the saints submtitted to the unjust treatments and/or commands. There is a clearly established pattern through the history of the Church.

Use your St. Athanasius example all you want...

Oh, I'm not suspecting motives at all. The enemies of the SSPX are pretty much up front about their thinking. Here's a sampling from the person who posted the piece, making a mountain out of a molehill--as you seem to be doing:

"An interesting insight into the mindset of the ultra-conservative catholic. Where the RC Church has its ultra liberals, here we see the diametrically opposed reactions from the SSPX."

5 posted on 12/20/2004 4:14:54 PM PST by NYer

As for the Society's doing "her work outside the Church", you are ill-informed by those who would blindly defend this Pope even in his errors of judgment. The SSPX is not only in the Church, but it rightfully criticizes the Pontiff for his heterodoxy--in accordance with the teachings of the Church:

"Hold firmly that you faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church.

"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects....'

"The reprehension was just and useful, and the reason for it was not light: there was a danger for the preservation of Gospel truth....The way it took place was appropriate, since it was public and manifest. For this reason, St. Paul writes: 'I spoke to Cephas,' that is, Peter, 'before everyone,' since the simulation practiced by St. Peter was fraught with danger to everyone. (Summa Theologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)

"Some say that fraternal corrrection does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake....For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)

As for the saints who took it on the chin--good for them. But such counsel as you would suggest doesn't apply at all when obeying a superior would actually constitute an act of false obedience. False obedience to an illegitimate command which demands resistance is as wrong as disobedience would be to a legitimate command. Both evils are to be avoided. See my response to Dominick above.

"False obedience to an illegitimate command which demands resistance is as wrong as disobedience would be to a legitimate command."

And around and around and around in circles we go. Again, what has the Pope COMMANDED you, your family, or Catholics at large, to do that needs to be publicly corrected. What COMMAND has he made to you or to your SSPX priest.

The answer is short--NONE! He has commanded you to do NOTHING opposed to Catholic Faith and morals. In fact, as GBJC has shown repeatedly, in his official teaching (laying aside Assisi I and II, which was bad example, NOT this teaching capacity as Pope!), he has reaffirmed, time and again, traditional Catholic doctrine.

All the posts you tirelessly post regarding true obedience has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the SSPX. What has the Pope ORDERED them to do? Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. It is really as simple as that no matter how many other issues you and others want to raise. Consecrating bishops AGAINST the express will of the Holy Father, traditionally, is a schismatic act. It always has been. It always will be.

Black,
Sorry for not checking my messages...yes, Fr. Boyle was transferred to England in 1998. I have no good newspaper to point you too. The article posted here is probably the best and maybe only one available. What I have to say is based on private e-mails listing many details of the proceedings. Plus, I know personally a lot of the people on both sides of the proceedings. Yes, this is the reason Doran was transferred. Again, I was there when he gave the "sermon" and everyone understood clearly why he was sent away six months later. I am not sure that this applies directly to Scott though. He probably had other factors in consideration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.