Skip to comments.Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser
Posted on 10/14/2002 9:07:17 AM PDT by Maximilian
Online Edition - Vol. VIII, No. 6: September 2002
is Abuser of Member of Bishops Review Board
by Helen Hull Hitchcock
One of the most troubling stories from victims of clerical sex-abuse that the US bishops heard at their June meeting in Dallas was that of Michael Bland, a former priest in the Friar Servants of Mary, known as the Servites.
Bland told the bishops that in 1994, almost seven years after his ordination, he revealed to superiors that he had been sexually abused as a teenager by an older member of the same order, and that he had been called to Rome to discuss the case. The order's authorities told him to reconcile with his abuser. When he refused, the authorities turned against him; whereupon he left the order and the priesthood.
"The priesthood lost me, but kept the perpetrator", Bland told the bishops, noting that the abuser, whom he did not name, had recently been promoted to full professor and vice-dean at a major Catholic university.
After his Dallas testimony, Bland, a psychologist who is now clinical-pastoral coordinator for victim assistance ministry for the Archdiocese of Chicago, was appointed a member of the bishops' national review board on clerical sexual abuse.
On August 6, the unnamed abuser was identified. The Washington Post revealed that John Huels, a Servite priest, influential liturgical canonist, professor of canon law and vice-dean of Saint Paul University in Ottawa, was Bland's abuser.
Alan Cooperman of the Washington Post reported, "Yesterday, in a brief statement that made no mention of Bland, Saint Paul University in Ottawa announced that the Reverend John M. Huels has temporarily left his posts as a professor and vice-dean of canon law".
The Post said that Huels told the university rector, the Reverend Dale M. Schlitt, that he would be "on medical leave for the treatment of severe depression". ("Justice Delayed Brings Vindication, Not Peace", www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52567-2002Aug6.html)
Catholic News Service reported that Ottawa Archbishop Marcel Gervais, who is also chancellor of Saint Paul University, issued a statement August 5, stating that Huels has "announced his intention to leave the Servite order and seek laicization". Archbishop Gervais said, "It is my hope that his voluntary actions today will bring peace to all involved".
Bland had told authorities of his abuse by Huels in 1994 when Huels, a professor of canon law at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, was made provincial of the Chicago province of the Servite order. Huels stepped down as provincial, but retained his CTU faculty position. Two years later he was hired to teach at Saint Paul's.
Archbishop Gervais told CNS that when Father Huels was hired six years ago as vice-dean of the canon law department the archbishop had not been informed of "any inappropriate behavior in his [Father Huels's] past". The CNS story said that Huels has now admitted his guilt to the archbishop, who said that in June this year "I was made aware of a situation" involving Huels.
However, according to the Washington Post, Bland wrote to the dean of canon law in March, "expressing my concern and wonderment why my perpetrator was teaching at Saint Paul University", and questioning Huels's promotion to vice-dean.
Bland told the Post that the week before the announcement of Huels's "temporary" medical leave, Bland had received two phone calls from Archbishop Gervais, who invited Bland to fly to Canada to discuss the matter, though the archbishop explained that he was not bound by the US bishops' policies. Bland said he told the archbishop that he saw no point in meeting until action was taken against Huels.
More abusers at Saint Paul's
Huels's case is not the first instance of a sexually abusive priest being hired at Saint Paul's, Canadian LifeSite News reported on August 12 ("Action on Sexually Abusive Priests Comes Only After Media Exposure - Ottawa Catholic University Attracts Sexual Abusing Professors", August 12, 2002, http://www.lifesite.net).
A known repeat pederast, Father Barry Glendinning, who had abused children in the 1970s and had been sent for "counseling", was hired by Saint Paul's in the late 1980s, and despite the fact that his abusive past was being reported in the media at the time. Glendinning was not only hired to teach at Saint Paul's, but soon became chairman of the Archdiocese of Toronto's Liturgy Commission. In 1999, some of Glendinning's victims launched civil suits against him. A report by an Ottawa Catholic researcher detailing the abuse was published in January 2000, shortly after which Glendinning withdrew from his post at Saint Paul's.
In May, the Toronto Sun reported that Saint Paul University had scheduled Father George C. Berthold, 67, to teach a course during a summer program. The Sun reported that Berthold decided to drop out after his past was exposed by the Boston Globe. The Globe reported that in November 1995 Berthold was fired from his position as dean of Saint John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts, for making improper advances toward a 19-year-old freshman seminarian. (Cardinal Law is under fire in part because he recommended Berthold despite his sexual abuse of the seminarian.)
On April 3, 2002, Father Michael Guimon, OSM, provincial of the Servites in Chicago, had written a letter concerning a different priestly abuser, stating, "In 1995, the Province formalized its position on this issue by establishing and promulgating formal policies and procedures on sexual misconduct with minors".
After his ouster as Chicago provincial of the Servite order in 1994, Huels spent time in South Africa before taking the appointment at Saint Paul University. Yet the renowned canonist remained an active supporter of homosexual "rights" -- and still used his title. On May 16, 1999, "Equality Illinois" published a list of activists who supported a Gay Rights Bill who had "signed their names stating their belief in justice and equal human rights for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity".
His name appears on this list as "Father John Huels, OSM, Prior Provincial, Servite Friars".
(The Gay Rights list is still accessible on the web site of "Equality Illinois" - http://www.ifhr.org/news/other/990516.htm#individuals.)
John Huels has been greatly influential in shaping the opinions of liturgists on a wide range of issues -- altar girls, posture and gestures of the people during Mass, so-called "inclusive" language in liturgical translations, placement of tabernacles in churches, roles of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, and even the kind of bread to be used for Mass.
He has published several books and numerous articles in prominent liturgical publications, has lectured throughout the United States at workshops and symposia, and has been on the faculty of liturgical institutes. He is currently listed on the Notre Dame Masters of Arts in theology summer-school faculty. Before going to Saint Paul University in 1996, where he taught seminarians, Huels remained on the faculty at Chicago's Catholic Theological Union where he had taught since 1982.
Huels received his degree in canon law from Catholic University of America. His dissertation director and mentor was Monsignor Frederick McManus, emeritus professor of canon law at CUA.
Monsignor McManus exerted profound and pervasive influence over nearly every aspect of the liturgy after the Second Vatican Council -- from church architecture to music and rubrics and translation.
Huels, like his mentor, believes that the interpretation of liturgical law should determine liturgical practices, and he advocates "legislation by interpretation" of the Church's liturgical rules.
A key principle is that if he finds a particular law unpersuasive, the canonist's objective is to find justifications for interpreting the law in such a way as to legitimize a change in practice, which may conflict with the actual law. This is the "make a path by walking on it" principle of changing or reversing laws one finds objectionable.
If confronted with an unwanted law, Huels repeatedly advises, create a new "custom":
"[A] standard principle in the science of canon law today is that church laws must be interpreted in light of the teachings of Vatican II. For the interpretation of liturgical law, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy has paramount importance. A major emphasis of the constitution is that the liturgical reforms are to encourage and enhance the full, conscious and active participation of the people in all the liturgical rites" (in "Standing During the Eucharistic Prayer", More Disputed Questions in the Liturgy, 1996. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, p 22f).
"Any interpretation of a liturgical law that ignores the theology behind the law is not a good interpretation. It is not faithful to the law's true meaning and spirit.", he writes in "Liturgy, Inclusive Language, and Canon Law", an essay in Living No Longer for Ourselves -- Liturgy and Justice in the Nineties (ed. Kathleen Hughes, RSCJ and Mark R. Francis, CSV, 1991. Liturgical Press, pp 138-152) .
But then, "The exact and literal fulfillment of the rubrics and other laws ought not to be the only consideration of the liturgical minister, but rather, how the law can be understood and enfleshed in ways that enhance the worship experience of the assembly. This is the purpose of liturgical law; this is its theological foundation....
"Fidelity to the spirit of the law and the interpretation of the letter of the law in light of its spirit is the 'new way of thinking' about canon law that Pope Paul VI challenged the Church to assume" (Ibid. p 149; emphasis added).
A few quotations of Huels's opinions and reasoning may help illustrate his approach to "interpreting" the law to achieve a desired change.
On sexism and foot-washing
"A literal application of a law that is perceived to be sexist is likely to be opposed or ignored, even if the law's observance is demanded by the bishop. Moreover, the equality of all the baptized is a principle enshrined in the fundamental, constitutional law of the church (canon 208). This principle is based on the divine law, to which merely ecclesiastical (human) law must defer. When a human law is perceived within a society as violating the principle of the equality of the sexes, it is not a good law in that context; it no longer is in the service of the church there. It is then necessary to correct the law in that local church by an appropriate remedy, such as dispensation or the development of a contrary custom (canons 85, 24)".
("Washing Women's Feet" More Disputed Questions in the Liturgy, p 27.)
On improvising use of feminist ("inclusive") language
What does it mean to say that no one on his own initiative may "add, remove, or change anything" in the liturgical books?
In "Liturgy, Inclusive Language, and Canon Law", Huels argues that "minor adaptations in the texts ... to make them more inclusive are by no means against the intent and spirit of canon 846, §1. On the contrary, because the purpose of the law is to promote the good of the community, the use of inclusive language best upholds the spirit of the law" (p 150 - emphasis added).
Canon law, says Huels, "obliges all the faithful to promote social justice [Canon 222, §2], and several other canons in the code are devoted to justice issues and the Church's teaching on the dignity and equality of persons".
Therefore, he reasons, "On the basis of these laws and teachings, one could argue that the use of inclusive language in the liturgy is not only desirable, it is obligatory as well. To the extent that inclusive language is a matter of justice affecting the dignity and equality of Christians, all Catholics are bound to promote its use, since all are bound to promote social justice" (p 141 - emphasis added).
"In the dialectical context of the council", Huels writes, the reason for the restrictive statement against unauthorized liturgical changes "doubtless ... was to reassure the conservative minority who did not want to change anything and who feared abuses.... The [restriction] thereby helped to bring about the consensus that ultimately resulted in the nearly unanimous favorable vote on the constitution as a whole".
But this is not needed today, Huels says, because "the most vociferous opponents of the liturgical reforms have now been discredited and their leaders [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, et al] excommunicated" (pp 147-148).
"In other words", he explains, "the exact and literal fulfillment of the rubrics and other laws ought not to be the only consideration of the liturgical minister but, rather, how the law can be understood and enfleshed in ways that enhance the worship experience of the assembly" (p 149).
"Canon Law states that no one on personal initiative may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgical books when celebrating the sacraments. This may, at first sight, appear to prohibit individuals from using inclusive language when the official texts do not. However, when the historical and theological contexts of the canon are uncovered, it becomes clear that the spirit of the law, if not its letter, actually favors the use of inclusive language" (p 151).
On the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani
At a workshop to explain the new Missal and the Institutio Generalis, or rules for celebration of Mass, sponsored by the diocese of Owensboro, Kentucky, last August, Huels suggested that it doesn't really apply to the US Church:
"The Roman Missal is primarily written with the Church of Rome and Mass at Saint Peter's in mind.... In Rome, especially at Saint Peter's, the norm is that there are a large number of priests and deacons to celebrate each [Mass] and therefore fewer lay liturgical ministers are present. In comparison to Rome for most Catholic communities in the United States the norm is only one priest and a large number of lay ministers. With this in mind it is easy to see why the Instruction calls for the priest and or deacon to perform several functions that here in the United States the priest would perform along with various lay ministers".
(Quoted in "Meaning and Implementation of the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal Discussed", West Kentucky Catholic, September 2001.)
On Kneeling vs. Standing
"In English-speaking North America, the posture prescribed by the bishops' conferences during the eucharistic prayer is kneeling from the end of the Sanctus through the Amen. However, in some parishes and in many religious communities and seminaries, the assembly stands throughout the eucharistic prayer. Is this an acceptable variation or an abuse of the law?...
"Because posture is a means of participation, what the optimal posture is for the assembly's active participation during the eucharistic prayer needs to be asked. Ritually, standing is the posture that most befits active participation. That is why the presider and deacon stand throughout the prayer; they are clearly active participants. Kneeling is fitting for personal prayer and is associated with the veneration of the reserved sacrament. However, in the eucharistic prayer is not a time for personal adoration of the reserved sacrament but for participation in a communal action, in the church's great prayer of praise and thanksgiving. This is not to say that there can be no participation by the people when they kneel but suggests rather that the posture of standing better signifies their baptismal dignity and better fosters a sense of their own active role in worship; they are not just passive spectators of an action going on at the altar.
"Enough has been said to conclude that standing is no abuse of the law; in fact, it serves better the value of active participation than does kneeling. Although the US bishops did not make the 'ideal' decision in 1969 on posture during the eucharistic prayer, they voted for what they perceived was realistically the best solution at the time. In doing so, they believed that it was desirable to avoid burdening the people with too many liturgical reforms all at once. Their reason is one that should always be considered in adapting the liturgy. The Christian people should not have liturgical changes suddenly and arbitrarily foisted upon them without catechesis at the whim of the pastor or director of liturgy. For example, to force the assembly to stand by removing all the kneelers in church, as has occurred in more than one parish, meets resistance and hostility, not with understanding and acceptance. The latter can only be achieved by thorough catechesis"...
("Standing During the Eucharistic Prayer", More Disputed Questions in the Liturgy, p 23)
On the Gesture of Reverence
The requirement (in IGMR §160) that the conference establish gestures of reverence before people receive Communion need not be enforced, according to Huels:
"Until now, the law recommended a sign of reverence but did not explicitly give the conference of bishops the authority to establish it. What is new in IGMR §160 is the requirement that the conference of bishops establish the appropriate gesture of reverence that is to be recommended to the faithful who communicate standing.
"This action need not be taken immediately. Indeed, the most acceptable reverence to be recommended will probably emerge only after wide consultation....
"In an informal Internet survey that I took among diocesan worship officers and liturgists in the English-speaking world there was general agreement that crossing and holding both hands reverently when receiving in the hand, and folding them when receiving on the tongue, are appropriate signs of reverence. There was unanimity among liturgists in their opposition to genuflection. Not only does it disrupt the communion procession and interrupt the flow of distribution, it presents physical challenges to the elderly and persons with certain disabilities. It is also against the universal law" (original emphasis).
Apparently, for those who genuflect before receiving Communion, a different rule applies, and this "disruptive practice" should be stopped at once:
"They have not been invited to do this but allegedly are following the advice of example given over a television network. Some pastors are already reporting difficulties.... Some official intervention appears to be necessary lest this disruptive practice spread more widely".
("The Revised Institutio Generalis of the Roman Missal and the Conference of Bishops", FDLC Newsletter, December 2000-January 2001, p 3 - original emphasis.)
Lasting Consequences - and two sets of rules
Although Huels has now retired in disgrace, his legacy will likely continue to affect every Catholic worshipper in the English-speaking world for many years.
Given the fact that Huels has violated the moral law for years, it is perhaps not surprising that much of his career has been devoted to rationalizing violations of Church law for the purpose of desacralizing the liturgy. This has been a preoccupation of other liturgists whose sexual misconduct has lately been revealed.
The belief that the "spirit" of the law may be interpreted and "enfleshed" so broadly that the actual law becomes meaningless has become a rigid orthodoxy for some professional liturgists.
And there are two sets of rules: permissive for those who want to overturn traditional norms; severe for those who maintain them.
We have seen the counterpart of this in secular law, where the most essential human right was obliterated by an ominous "penumbra" in the 1973 Supreme Court decision on abortion, while the same "penumbra" protects and defends the rights of libertines.
The history of this era has dramatically shown that an "interpretation" by a few has lasting consequences for the many.
Copyright © 2002 Adoremus: Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy. All rights reserved.
To call Huels "influential" is an understatement. This guy has been involved with everything you hate about modern liturgies. Most importantly, he (and his "mentor") first proposed the policy of "creating a path by walking on it." In other words, "just go ahead and do things that are forbidden and eventually the Church will approve them." This policy has been wildly successful in bringing us everything from altar girls to hand-holding during the Our Father.
The important point is not that he fell into sin and then had his accuser removed from the order. The important point is that he has been revealed as a revolutionary. It's clear that we have anti-Catholic revolutionaries burrowed into important clerical positions all across the world, causing uncountable damage to the Church. One of them has been exposed. We should look carefully at all of his connections and assume that wittingly or unwittingly, they are all tainted.
For example, Peter Vere is a supposed canon law expert who is making a career out of attacking traditionalists. In The Wanderer and on Stephen Hand's website he poses as a "conservative" who is attacking those who have gone too far to the right. But he has written several paeons in praise of Fr. Huels and has enthused that "everything he knows about Canon Law he learned from Huels." Vere might not be a homosexual, but he has made it clear that he's swallowed Huel's philosophy hook, line and sinker.
<> He has not. Please cite a single instance to back up that charge. Please show where Vere has promoted what Huels promoted.
The fact is that Vere, rightly, quit the schism. You might not be a homosexual, but can you show me where Vere apes Huels in promoting liturgical or ecclesiastical anomie?<>
I have been trying to figure out why a lot of the Catholic churches I've been going to, outside of my own parish, seemed so, dare I say it, protestant? Standing for the Consecration makes Catholics less reverent. Holding hands all the time gives us a hullabaloo mentality. If our Catholic church looks so much like a protestant one then why not just go to a protestant church when it suits you? Hmmmm, I suspect that is the very reason why Huels has been monkeying around with the liturgy. May he rot in the hot place reserved for all Jude-ass's.
I have a friend who quit going to church shortly after Vatican II and stayed away until a good friend of his died and he went to the funeral. He said he did not recognize the service at all and he had to ask the people around him if he was in a Catholic church. (My friend has since come back to the faith but only attends the Tridentine rite.)
We are in danger of losing our Catholic identity, no to mention our souls.
I've seen this charge laid at Vere's feet twice now, just on this forum alone.
I've never seen proof of the assertion, just the assertion itself (seems to me HDMZ has made this claim too, but I don't take at face value anything from a sede)
Please substantiate this claim, Max, or stop making it, OK?
A Prayer for Priests
Keep them, I pray Thee, dearest Lord,
Keep them, for they are Thine -
Thy priests whose lives burn out before
Thy consecrated shrine.
Keep them, for they are in the world.
Though from the world apart;
When earthly pleasures tempt, allure, -
Shelter them in Thy heart.
Keep them, and comfort them in hours
Of lonliness and pain,
When all their life of sacrifice
For souls seems but in vain.
Keep them, and O remember, Lord,
They have no one but Thee,
Yet they have only human hearts,
With human frailty.
Keep them as spotless as the Host,
That daily they caress;
Their every thought and word and deed,
Deign, dearest Lord, to bless.
A search on Google will turn up several examples. Here's one where Vere attacks traditionalists while gushing over the genius of Huels:
"Fr. Huels writes with a scholarly precision, a canonical insight and a clarity of thought I may never master in my own canonical writings. There is nothing I can either add or dispute in his following canonical opinion. Therefore, rather than draft my own response to the questions posed by TCRs readership, I opted to present Fr. Huels canonical opinion permission for which I thank Fr. Huels, Stephen Hand, and the Canon Law Society of America."
Here is another sample of Vere gushing over Huels while acknowledging Huel's influence:
"Probably no individual has inspired me more in the ministry of writing and canon law than Fr. John Huels, OSM. Fr. Huels' influence among Catholics as both a gifted writer and canonist spans the entire globe."
From here, Frs. William Woestman and John Huels fueled my newly discovered love of canon law, and I was later privileged to study under both individuals while at Saint Paul University. I particularly recommend Fr. Huels' "Pastoral Companion" for anyone seeking an introduction to canon law.
Here's Vere's Blog where he talks about how depressed he's become over Huel's situation, but luckily he has his horror stories, drinking games, and professional wrestling to lift his spirits (how many of us agree that "Roadkill" is our "favorite Amish warrior"?):
To your knowledge, has Pete responded to these charges, on his CLOG blog or elsewhere?
I have been commenting on various threads about the great number of nonCatholic bishops appointed in the 70's initiated by the Apostolic Nuncio,Jean Jadot.I think he was able to introduce bishops whose "mentors" had been infiltrated into the seminaries earlier in the century by enemies whose agenda was to destroy the Catholic Church.
The former bishop of Phoenix was just such a person.It was recently disclosed that he spent time trollng for teen-age boys in a neighboring diocese while he was bishop,no less.It was recently noted that the motto he adopted upon becoming bishop was "To Prepare the Way."At the time it had no particular significance to most Catholics. In retrospect it was probably telegraphing his intentions to others in the know.I think everyone on these threads whose bishop was ordained in the 70's should look up the motto he chose,I'll bet we will learn much about the enemies game plan that might be helpful right now.
Whaddya make of this???
"We are Church;Together we are Church",was probably a little too jarring.It might have awakened even the most ordinary of sleeping Catholics."The" gave him a little waffle room.How diabolically clever they were.IMHO.
Maybe Vere's not aware of this, maybe he's only a "useful idiot."
In charity, I think you must apply the benefit of the doubt, and assume that what Pete says is what he believes to be the Truth, not part of some sinister dialectical combat.
And Pete is certainly not an idiot. Like myself, he may just be (relatively) young and naive. Furthermore, in their concern to distance themselves from the real errors of schismatic traditionalism (there are no errors in faithful Catholic traditionalism, really) folks like Vere and Hand can and do error honestly. They have seen the true dangers of schism and their zeal in removing themselves from those errors may lead them into other errors, no less dangerous.
For that matter, even Huel's true motives are unknown, though the damage he has done may be objectively quantified.
Ascribing motives is the number one offense on both sides of the conservative versus traditionalist divide.
Agreed. The bottom line will be whether Vere is willing to abandon any objective errors he picked up from Huels. Or whether Vere has personalized the errors of Huel at all, in reality.
I do think your "analysis" is sophomoric conspiritorialism of a rank order. You'll fit in with several of the folks on these theads. One is befriending you even now...Ultie, meet Maxi...Maxi, meet Ultie...
As Jackie Gleason used to say "And away we go......."<>
This is how the rot grows and grows and grows in our Church - and how the safety of children (esp. teenage boys) get the lowest priority.
I guess for those that oppose the Council, the personal opinions of a homosexual sex abuser supercedes Catholic Doctrine. Intersesting. "And away we go......"
Another possibility is that like the "Manchurian Candidate" there are only certain combinations of words that will trigger a "program" and the person so programmed may not be aware at all of how,or even that,he/she had been programmed.
I believe initially,he was with the "progressives",I do think,he now knows and that's why John Paul II is insisting he clean up the mess he made. This must be very humiliating to the cardinal,far more punitive than exiling him to Iran where he could live in relative anonymity.
I always thought a fitting punishment for Clinton was to strip him and send him from city to city in a box car and invite all of the people to view the "emperor" without his clothes.So in a way the Pope and I think alike.(-_o)The devil hates to be mocked and so do people with an overated opinion of themselves.Temporal punishment for wrongs committed in this world,if accepted with sorrow for the sins committed probably helps cut down on some time in purgatory.Just some developing thoughts.
Interesting that you are connecting Hand and Vere. Pete and I have interesting discussions, not always seeing eye to eye, but agreeing more times than not on basic Catholic issues. OTOH, I am no fan of Stephen Hand and what I label as his unscrupulous behavior vis-a-vis the use of private communications, but I have defended his right in other venues to make an idiot of himself.
Fight with my wife? I have to fight with my Church. Right now, our parish is broiling over parents angry over a now-exposed homosexual-molestor deacon who was with us for over eight years. Both my sons' Catholic schools have had serious homosexual molestations occur within the past decade. In the middle of bringing up my kids Catholic, I have to find a way to explain this crud within the Church to my kids. Of course, it will strip away some of their faith in the Church. My older son is supposed to take a 'Family Life' course, but the obviously queer priest in charge will not allow me to review the curriculum. I am honestly frightened by what he may be taught there. One of our parish priests the other day told everyone in Church that it was OK not to come to mass. Our parish priest told our Bible study group the other night that the virgin birth of Christ didn't make sense, because it might lead some to question the 'wonder of sexuality.' Etc. Etc. etc. You know, you are right, Catholicguy. It's my wife's and my responsibility to teach our kids Catholicism. But instead of the Church being by our side, it often fighting against us. I'm sick and tired of having to carefully vet everything and everyone from the Church that and who has contact with my children. It's a crying shame that we have sunk so low.
Hey saradippity. I think you are likely right. Law is being forced to clean up his own stinking mess. But so many times in the past, Law has placed the 'image' and prestige (what's left of it) of the Church ahead of the welfare of children. I am truly afraid that he will revert to form. People do occasionally change fundamentally. But it is a very rare phenomenon in my experience. And that, frankly, makes me wonder if the Pope's primary concern here is the safety and well-being of children. If that had been the Pope's primary concern, it seems to me he would have thrown out the shuffler bishops and immediately replaced them with no-nonsense (Christian) advocates of children's welfare and safety. He would have let, through such action, everyone know that what has happened will NOT be tolerated, and that there will be significant consequences to those responsible (in this world).
Contacting him is a good suggestion, but I question the description "cheap shot." I documented all my claims.
Interesting that you are connecting Hand and Vere.
You correctly point out the great differences in approach taken by Peter Vere and by Stephen Hand. However, they have been working hand in glove. Here is what Vere says on his blog:
As most of my readers know, my first big print break as a Catholic writer came from The Wanderer. At the time, I was still strongly identified with the hard-line Traditionalist movement, even though I had long since come to a deeper understanding of the Second Vatican Council and joined the Le Barroux camp ideologically as a Catholic who feels attached to the old Latin missal. It was a little lonely with just Stephen Hand and I over at Today's Catholic Reflections, although this began our deep friendship that continues until this day. Anyway, Al Matt at The Wanderer was willing to give me a chance, and a break. He also gave Steve a chance when the whole controversy broke that year. So I've remained fiercely loyal to both the Wanderer and TCR to this day.One wonders, where did this "deeper understanding of Vatican II" come from if not from Huels who was his mentor after he left the SSPX?
I'm really surprised that you would have your kids in a situation like this. We did pull our kids from a "Family Life" course after we reviewed the material and saw that so-called "education for chastity" was nothing more than the same old sex education re-packaged to sound more traditional.
This was a first step towards pulling our kids out of Catholic schools entirely. I wouldn't send my kids to any parochial school at this point. They are designed to destroy their faith. After all, think about this, the same people who are forcing sex ed on your kids are also designing the rest of the curriculum and teaching your kids the faith as well. Is this what you want?
No. We are considering what to do. It is not easy.
I read his homily on his 50th anniversary.I can't stand it when we talk about the church of Patterson and the church of Cleveland,etc.,it seems so divided and factionalized.And then we he repeats in all the many languages of his diverse group his motto,I am reminded again of how the New Order vernacularized mass splits rather than makes whole the Body of Christ.
And that nutso social engineering plug. It offends me to hear priests and bishops act like Catholics didn't know what justice was until VatII.There is no question that my grandmother and,mother and father gave much more of themselves to the world than catholics do now.And,so much of this "social justice" work is not done by volunteers but instead by paid church staff.Pre Vat Catholics(many of them at least)believed that,nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ,they were sent in to the world to accomplish His mission.Someone once told me that "Ite,missa sunt" meant "Go,you are sent",now that's powerful,that's treating "the children of God" like adults.
I have been watching this bishop for a whle and I probably would not be so critical except for the fact that I know he has had scandal after scandal after scandal. So all tis nicely,nice talk,to me,means nothing,nada,in Spanish.
Fr. Huels has done to the liturgy what Fr. "Dick" Vosko has done to our beautiful churches -
he has WRECKOVATED it.
They're all beginning to surface, one by one. The connections should be obvious as the links are drawn. A closer look at the bishops who readily implemented these changes should warrant more scrutiny as well, for possible collusion.
The history of this era has dramatically shown that an "interpretation" by a few has lasting consequences for the many.
These can be reversed but only with the removal of those bishops, like Hubbard and Clark, who instituted these reforms many years ago.
You are such a knee jerk reactionary.
I was referring to the real errors of the schismatics (denial of the validity of the Novus Ordo, sedevacantism), as opposed to what many "neoconservatives" here and elsewhere think are errors but are simply erroneous criticisms of valid traditionalism.
You folks might have some allies in your battles if you didn't turn them all off by your repulsive behavior and knee jerk attacks. You acribe motives unjustly and jump to incorrect conclusions ---such as this--- because of your obsession with finding monsters where they simply do not exist, or desire to turn good decent orthodox Catholics into the monsters of your nightmares.