Skip to comments.Prout Principal Will Not Resign After Controversial Assembly
Posted on 04/12/2014 10:37:31 AM PDT by marshmallow
SOUTH KINGSTOWN Kathleen Schlenz of Peace Dale knew something was wrong when her daughter, Anna, arrived home from school Friday.
The Rev. Francis Rocky Hoffman, a priest of Opus Dei, an orthodox division of the Roman Catholic Church, and executive director and radio host of Relevant Radio, a Catholic radio network that broadcasts on 33 stations in 13 states and online, had spoken to a school-wide assembly at The Prout School, where Anna is a junior. The speech was being taped to be broadcast on Relevant Radio at a later date.
She was most upset about the divisive and offensive language regarding divorce, homosexuality and even adoption, Kathleen Schlenz said. None of the parents or faculty knew it was being taped to be aired. They were essentially held hostage and told to clap after this mans responses to questions, even when they didnt agree with them.
Father Hoffman was on retreat and unavailable for comment before the Independent went to press Wednesday.
On April 10, parents received a letter of apology from Principal David Carradini since Friday. In the new letter, Carradini announced he would not resign.
People in our community are calling for my resignation, seeing in this event the culmination of frustration with my leadership, Carradini wrote in the April 10 letter. I have taken this call very seriously, deliberating with myself for days and seeking counsel from others. I sincerely believe that my resignation as Principal is not in the best interests of The Prout School. I have this discussed this option with diocesan officials and they, too, believe that I should continue in my position as the leader of our School.
Many have questioned why I did not stop Fr. Hoffman when I sensed things were going badly, Carradini wrote. I have offered three explanations.......
(Excerpt) Read more at independentri.com ...
None of the parents or faculty knew it was being taped to be aired. They were essentially held hostage and told to clap after this mans responses to questions, even when they didnt agree with them.
The left are training the kids to be good little brownshirts.
You’re believing the account of one disgruntled cafeteria Catholic parent of what her daughter may or may not have told her or implied. These people hate Opus Dei because it is orthodox, so exaggeration, dissimulation or flat out lying about any event involving it are perfectly acceptable means of attack to them.
I don’t feel much sympathy for the Principal. He’s running a cafeteria catholic school, and he apologizes because the invited guest spoke the truth about Catholic teachings.
Also, note this comment from the first response to the news article, which contradicts what the reporter or the whiners said:
“So I go to Prout and was at the assembly. First off, we knew that this was a radio broadcast (IDK what this article is talking about), that was made perfectly clear to us, in fact, we were supposed to ask questions to Fr. Hoffman. Students whose questions were chosen, would get to ask them on the radio station.”
None of the parents or faculty knew it was being taped to be aired. They were essentially held hostage and told to clap after this mans responses to questions, even when they didnt agree with them.
That is explicitly illegal in the state of New Jersey and is probably also illegal in Rhode Island also.
Each child requires a permission slip signed by a legal guardian to have their likeness, voice, picture, video etc to first be recorded, and then redistributed.
Seeing as this group is a 501 nonprofit or religious organization that accepts donations on a url that will contain a direct hyperlink to this recorded speech, brings in a whole other set of legal precedents in New Jersey, and probably Rhode Island as well.
On top of that, as it was a religious topic, in New Jersey another permission slip would be required for each student to allow participation in the event, or alternatively a school wide flyer can be sent home with all kids to allow any objecting parent time to arrange for their child to skip school, or go to study hall or something during the event.
This school principal stepped into a huge pile of dogshite because of her lack of professionalism, and it didn’t have to be this way nor did the event have to be controversial during or afterwards,....
NO one wants their kids to be imprisoned in an auditorium while being lectures on Hadiths by radical Salafists, ... without giving each parent the choice if they want their child exposed to this.
Divorce is wrong
Homosexual practice is wrong
Sex outside marriage is wrong
Abortion is wrong
If you can’t support this, get out.
But, as long as they do the seven sacraments...right?
heh, I wonder if religious and.or non-religious private schools require legal guardian’s permission to record and rebroadcast child/pupil likenesses in Rhode Island.
My prior post might be solely related to public schools, hadn’t thought it through before posting.
“But, as long as they do the seven sacraments...right?”
They don’t do seven and clearly only one of the ones they have received has ever done any good.
Not sure about Rhode Island, but here in New York, my son’s Catholic high school requires EVERY parent to sign a waiver giving the school permission to use the images and likenesses of each student.
The school needs to drop any connection to a church, they obviously don’t bother to teach any of it
Prison like a public school?
That is not remotely what happened. Are you put off by the mention of Opus Dei? It is, unfortunately, not uncommon for Catholic schools to be run by people with a less than solid commitment to Catholic teaching, and to serve parents who are if not hostile to those teachings, then equivocal in their acceptance. We live in uncertain time. Imagine my feeling when I run into a priest whose thinking about the Real Presence is less in line with Catholic orthodoxy than what John Calvin says in his Institutes.
I am still surprised to heard about incidents such as one in NewYork where a Catholic high school allows a homosexual couple to come to the school prom. A Jebbie priest has the nerve to publish a to say this is not to condone homosexual behavior. What sophistry! The Church has been very soft on the whole homosexual issue. The word orientation, bothers me. What does it mean? I mean, is it just a matter of taste, such as my orientation to smart brunettes rather than dumb blondes? I fear it is simply that we have too many religious who are wrongly oriented, which makes them disinclined to speak out on sexual issues at all.
Interesting to notice we have the official approver of sacramental satisfaction right here on FR! Wow, the judge, jury, and executioner.
“Interesting to notice we have the official approver of sacramental satisfaction right here on FR! Wow, the judge, jury, and executioner.”
I’m none of those. What I am is observant.
The parents were given the choice to send their kid(s) to a Catholic school or a public school. It is tHey who chose the former. They can always transfer. Their darlings are not being held captive.
"What I am is observant."
So, you have decided their view of Catholicism is ineffective and they are lost, but you are simply "observant"? What do you make of your own?
Opus Dei is a wonderful order of priest. Very orthodox in their beliefs, very straight. I don’t think this person did anything wrong.
I also agree with the principal. One girl’s hearsay testimony is not enough.
What is it?? Guilty until proven innocent like with Sister Jane Dominic Laurel?
“So, you have decided their view of Catholicism is ineffective and they are lost, but you are simply “observant”?”
Do you think their “view of Catholicism is” effective? Where did I say they were lost? What is more than observant?
“What do you make of your own?”
How would that matter in regard to this story?
I doubt if we will get to hear this particular talk on the Relevantradio.com website, but here is a link to what sounds like a similar talk by Father Hoffman. I listened to it today myself. Sounds like this is part of the ongoing effort by the homosexual lobby to denigrate any and all efforts to use the REGNERUS study. Hoffman cites this study in his talk. It’s interesting that they are throwing this study up as being anti-single mother, anti-adoption, anti-divorced parents. It seems that all the weeping and gnashing of the teeth that goes on with their attempts to achieve homosexual rights isn’t working with a lot of churches. The homosexual lobby is now trying additional attacks on some of the exposed flanks.
I wonder what he said?
Their sacramental effectiveness, you noted, was clearly missing on six of the seven. By deeming their efforts ineffective, you thus pronounce two things:
1. you are one holding the ability to judge effectiveness within the Catholic paradigm.
2. and, missing by six means the person is lost.
You were not merely observing, you were judging. Don't be bashful...step up and pound the chest.
"How would that matter in regard to this story?"
I was curious what the judge thought of their own effectiveness.
How can one firm a judgment, or even an intelligent opinion, based on zero information?
They call this journalism?
“Their sacramental effectiveness, you noted, was clearly missing on six of the seven.”
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense. There is no such thing as “Their sacramental effectiveness”. I would never use such a phrase because the phrase is a logical impossibility.
“By deeming their efforts ineffective, you thus pronounce two things:”
Where did I EVER say ANYTHING about “their efforts ineffective”? You are completely making things up out of thin air now. I never said anything about “their efforts”.
“1. you are one holding the ability to judge effectiveness within the Catholic paradigm.”
Since you can’t even get what I said correct, your conclusion by necessity is most likely false. And, what effectiveness are you even talking about? You comments make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
“2. and, missing by six means the person is lost.”
Missing? “missing by six means the person is lost”? According to whom? Seriously, your comments are bizarre and clearly have nothing to do with anything I actually said.
“You were not merely observing, you were judging.”
Nope. But you are clearly judging what I said and yet you’re clearly doing it without even getting the facts of what I said correct.
“Don’t be bashful...step up and pound the chest.”
What on earth are you talking about? Your comments grow increasingly bizarre and incoherent.
“I was curious what the judge thought of their own effectiveness.”
What effectiveness? Your posts make no sense.
"They dont do seven and clearly only one of the ones they have received has ever done any good."
Well, my FRiend, if you cannot read and understand the sense of your own post, it explains much about the problem with Catholicism.
Father Z’s blog has an excellent take on this.
Parents send their kids to Catholic high school, and then both are shocked to discover Catholic doctrine being taught.
I’ll say it as often as stories like these come up: I’m an alum of a Protestant private school. If you send your kids to a religious school and then you and they get mad at being exposed to religious doctrine, even the controversial stuff (especially the controversial stuff), you’re overpaying for public school. And I’ll add that if you’re a religious school administrator, and your first instinct in cases like these is to apologize, you’re overcharging for public school.
And no, no, no. Now that Francis is pope, the Jesuits are back as the order conspiracy buffs have to worry about. Opus Dei can relax now.
And I particularly love this part. No, nobody knew this was being done for broadcast. Yeah, right. If they didn’t know beforehand, they would certainly have known when they saw the mikes and control board set up.
As in Notre Dame, University of?
You're right, they are.
But in-your-face sermons are not an effective tactic to fight that. This was just dumb.
“Well, my FRiend, if you cannot read and understand the sense of your own post, it explains much about the problem with Catholicism.”
I asked you a simple and direct question: “Where did I EVER say ANYTHING about their efforts ineffective? You are completely making things up out of thin air now. I never said anything about their efforts.”
And, in response, you posted something I posted earlier that says EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT “their efforts ineffective”. I never said what you claimed I said. Why do you insist on making things up out of thin air?
I realize anti-Catholic bigotry makes people stupid, so let me be as clear as possible:
1) I never said anything even remotely about “their efforts”.
2) Sacraments are not “their efforts”. Sacraments come from Christ.
Just to be perfectly clear, your feet do not move when you receive any of the sacraments? You simply tele-port yourself up to take the wafer & wine. Just as Jesus is transubstantiated, you are tele-substantiated up to the altar and you absolutely do not do anything...not even swallow. Well, that is a picture.
And, you may wish to reread your remarks because you “clearly” said something about the effectiveness of their teletransportation non-effort.
“Just to be perfectly clear, your feet do not move when you receive any of the sacraments?”
Just to be perfectly clear, your comment has nothing to do with anything I said.
“You simply tele-port yourself up to take the wafer & wine.”
I’ve never received a wafer and wine. I have received Christ’s Body and Blood. Jesus does all the heavy lifting.
“Just as Jesus is transubstantiated, you are tele-substantiated up to the altar and you absolutely do not do anything...not even swallow. Well, that is a picture.”
If I receive them, I obviously got to the parish. There is no “Their efforts effective” in any of that on my part. God does all the work.
“And, you may wish to reread your remarks because you clearly said something about the effectiveness of their teletransportation non-effort.”
Nope. I said no such thing. You’re completely making up words, phrases and ideas I have never expressed. I would expect nothing less from you.
hikingmani posted at 8:47 pm on Fri, Apr 11, 2014. hikingmaniPosts: 1 So I go to Prout and was at the assembly. First off, we knew that this was a radio broadcast (IDK what this article is talking about), that was made perfectly clear to us, in fact, we were supposed to ask questions to Fr. Hoffman. Students whose questions were chosen, would get to ask them on the radio station. Questions were asked about gay marriage, abortion, and other theological issues. Fr. Rocky answered them all the way you'd expect him to.
Who to believe? a journalist quoting a disgruntled parent of a disgruntled student; or a gruntled student? Need more evidence.
Wow - reminded me of an old story about alcoholics who only wanted clean, decent, and habitually sober alcoholics to attend their meetings - then the wiser among them asked what the Father would think about that....
yeah, you are right
There is something seriously wrong with the Catholic mindset. I am not sure if it like a mental defect, or an intentional departure from reality. They speak one thing, then claim another. They talk of “faith”, but they mean acting out certain behaviors like saying so many paternosters or hail marys. When confronted, they retreat to a world of their own making, lost in the darkness of religiosity, but without any of the truth explained “clearly” in Scripture. They cannot listen to Paul, but they can listen to a string of popes, many of whom killed to get their positions.
Those of us here who cling to Jesus Christ alone, not some apparition of mary or some bone of peter, or some swinging smoke can, call to all of those who might listen. Come out from the whore of Babylon, come out into the light of Christ, alone. If you are being drawn to Him, if you have been given to Him by the Father, then you will hear His voice and leave that monstrosity of dark theological error and cling to Him. You will be clothed in His righteousness, not a righteousness of your own making. You have no hope, unless He rescues you. And, you will be rescued, if He decides to rescue you. That is the biblical Gospel, not Rome’s sick version. But, otherwise, God has excluded you as He excluded Esau.
“There is something seriously wrong with the Catholic mindset.”
No, there’s just something wrong with the mindset of Protestant anti-Catholic bigots. That bigotry seems to retard the bigot’s ability to reason, to think, to comprehend. Does it also provide the bigot with a justification for making things up that no one actually said, to lie in other words? It sure seems to.
“I am not sure if it like a mental defect, or an intentional departure from reality. They speak one thing, then claim another.”
I don’t. I just make the proper and necessary distinctions and refuse to stand idly by while a Protestant anti-Catholic bigot insists I said something in words I never used, or that I expressed an idea I never expressed.
“They talk of faith, but they mean acting out certain behaviors like saying so many paternosters or hail marys.”
I don’t know what you mean, because, not surprisingly you’re not providing context at all. Catholics and Protestants often use the same words differently. A Catholic would expect someone of faith to act on it since that is exactly what scripture tells us. There’s a reason why St. Paul used the phrase “obedience of faith”. Protestants, however, having forced a wedge between faith and works (meaning our cooperation with those works God begins in us and shares with us) cannot see what scripture actually says. This has been somewhat corrected with the inevitable “New Perspective on Paul” but there is a long way to go before Protestants will know the actual gospel rather than their “faith alone” caricature of it.
“When confronted, they retreat to a world of their own making,”
No retreat whatsoever - but the Christian world is undoubtedly not of a Protestant making since it was up to Christ and His Church to make it and Protestants are at least partially estranged from both.
“lost in the darkness of religiosity,”
It is amazing to me how someone who insisted I was judging people of my own faith can write something like that about people of another faith and apparently not see the blatant hypocrisy that statement exhibits. Bigotry. Nothing more. Nothing less.
“but without any of the truth explained clearly in Scripture. They cannot listen to Paul, but they can listen to a string of popes, many of whom killed to get their positions.”
Again, the hypocrisy. I had not even seen the above comment until I had already mentioned St. Paul’s use of the phrase “obedience of faith” and yet, here I am, and every other Catholic too, accused of not even being able to listen to St. Paul. Perhaps among any other people in the world the very hubris of such a statement might give a person among that people pause - but not among Protestant anti-Catholic bigots. No, not among them. In their twilight world of bigotry there apparently is little or no circumspection or reflection.
“Those of us here who cling to Jesus Christ alone, not some apparition of mary or some bone of peter, or some swinging smoke can, call to all of those who might listen.”
Notice the bigotry? First, it is denied that we “cling to Jesus Christ alone”. Second we are said to replace Him with Marian apparitions, relics of saints, and incense. Let’s put this to the test. Does a believer who clings to Jesus alone believe in scripture? Then isn’t that Jesus plus the Bible? Does the believe in question pray? Isn’t that Jesus plus prayer? Does the believer go to church, or tithe, or feed the hungry? Plus, plus, plus. Now, in reality we all know that what we should want is every gift Christ can give us. Every single one - for they are all for our benefit and His glory. So, if He allows His mother to appear to men to tell them to honor her Son, pray, love their neighbor, etc. why would I have a problem with that? Relics were used to heal people - through the power of Christ. Even Peter’s shadow healed men - through the power of Christ. Why would I have a problem with that gift from Christ? And incense? Incense was used in Jesus’ day to worship the Father. Now we use it to worship Christ too. Think about it. When is incense most used in the Mass? It is used at the altar before the Eucharist, and at the ambo before the gospel is read. It’s about Jesus. I see no reason to reject that typological reminder in our liturgical worship. It’s a gift from Christ.
“Come out from the whore of Babylon, come out into the light of Christ, alone.”
I did. That’s why I am not a Protestant.
“If you are being drawn to Him, if you have been given to Him by the Father, then you will hear His voice and leave that monstrosity of dark theological error and cling to Him.”
Again, I did, that is why I am not a Protestant.
“You will be clothed in His righteousness, not a righteousness of your own making.”
Oh? And who here claims we have a “righteousness of [our] own making”? That’s yet another example of something being completely made up that no one here ever expressed.
“You have no hope, unless He rescues you.”
He already did. That is why I am not a Protestant.
“And, you will be rescued, if He decides to rescue you.”
He did decide. That is why I am not a Protestant.
“That is the biblical Gospel, not Romes sick version.”
The sickness poured out of Geneva and Wittenberg and Zurich and London/Canterbury. Protestants do not know the true gospel. They only have a caricature of it.
“But, otherwise, God has excluded you as He excluded Esau.”
He has not excluded us. That is why we are not Protestants.
I am happy you are not a Protestant...whatever that is. The believers, as the Scriptures call them, don’t need appellations as Roman Catholics do. Believers don’t need the seven sacraments, as Romanists do. Romanists view this pronouncement as “bigotry”, which is a laughable concept. Speaking truth to an error has never been bigotry...just as pronouncing homosexuality as sin is not bigotry. But, notice who is calling who a bigot?
“I am happy you are not a Protestant...whatever that is.”
Look in the mirror.
“The believers, as the Scriptures call them, dont need appellations as Roman Catholics do.”
I’m not “Roman Catholic”. I’m just Catholic.
“Believers dont need the seven sacraments, as Romanists do.”
I’m not a “Romanist”, but since God gave us seven sacraments - and all ancient Christians have them (leaves out your sects) - He clearly wanted us to have them.
“Romanists view this pronouncement as bigotry, which is a laughable concept.”
Bigots use terms like “Romanists” while claiming not to be bigots.
“Speaking truth to an error has never been bigotry...”
That’s not what you’re doing.
“just as pronouncing homosexuality as sin is not bigotry.”
What you are saying would be true - if that was what you’re doing, but you aren’t.
“But, notice who is calling who a bigot?”
Notice who is using terms like “Romanist”?
Notice who must use ad hominem because their argument doesn’t make sense in itself? God did not give you seven sacraments, that is a fabrication of your organization. and, nowhere does the Scripture support such superstitious nonsense. Nowhere in Scripture does the term “Catholic” appear with or without Rome (and don’t throw “trinity” around, that old saw is worn). Thus, we will continue to point you away from self-made religion and to Jesus, Himself...
“Notice who must use ad hominem because their argument doesnt make sense in itself?”
“who” is singular. “their” is plural. My argument make perfect sense. The same cannot be said for yours.
“God did not give you seven sacraments, that is a fabrication of your organization.”
So why then do the Coptic Christians say God instituted 7 sacraments? They are not on “[my] organization”.
“and, nowhere does the Scripture support such superstitious nonsense.”
Scripture supports seven sacraments.
“Nowhere in Scripture does the term Catholic appear with or without Rome (and dont throw trinity around, that old saw is worn).”
Perhaps worn, but still true. “Trinity” appears nowhere in scripture. Neither does “Bible”.
“Thus, we will continue to point you away from self-made religion and to Jesus, Himself...”
You’ve never done that. All you have done is point me toward the heresy of Protestantism while falsely claiming that is about Jesus.
Well, then my FRiend, I suspect we will have to wait and see who was closer to the Scriptural message from God when this is all over. I understand that you wish to remain permanently planted in the view of Rome; I will stick with the Scriptures.
“I will stick with the Scriptures.”
You stick with Geneva. That’s all you do.
I understand the seven sacraments Rome requires for salvation, but what doctrines in particular do you think emanate from Geneva?
“I understand the seven sacraments Rome requires for salvation...”
Does the Coptic Church have 7 sacraments?
Do the Eastern Orthodox churches have 7 sacraments?