Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser

Adoremus Bulletin ^ | September, 2002 | Helen Hull Hitchcock

[Polycarp]

That's why it's essential to expose revolutionaries like Huels so we can see whom he's been using to promote his agenda.

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.

[Maximilian]

>>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.

Giving Vere the benefit of the doubt is exactly what I did. It is an objective fact that Vere has been used in a "sinister dialectical combat." Huels has said so. I am willing to assume the Vere was unaware of this.

I thought Freepers would be familiar with the term "useful idiot." It means the "fellow travellers" in the 1930's who promoted the Communist cause without ever realizing it. They were unwitting tools in the dialectical process.

Another example would be the journalists who promoted the "nuclear freeze" in the early 1980's. The majority were unaware that they were parroting communist propaganda.

This doesn't mean that they were stupid, except in a metaphysical sense. The "useful idiots" of the 1930s and 1980s and all the decades in between were primarily people of very high IQs. But they were blind to the larger implications of their beliefs and actions.

There was no question of ascribing motives even to Huels. He SAID that he was forwarding the dialectical process initiated at Vatican II. He SAID that they used deceptive language during the council and then "discredited and excommunicated" their conservative opponents. He told us that they did all these things to achieve their objective. One needn't gild the lilly by tacking on additional motives beyond what he has already admitted.

[Catholicguy]

<> That is total bullshit. An Ecumenical Council is not susceptible to that sort of "dialetical" approach; unless you think the Holy Spirit coaxed conmmunism in the Council....who knows what it is you believe.

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......."<>

[yendu bwam]

Why do the Church's greatest enemies always seem to be within? Why do we have to fight so hard just to be able to offer to our children authentic Catholicism?

[yendu bwam]

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.

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.

[Catholicguy]

<> I will note the absurdity of you taking the word of a man who disgusts you and who is a known sexual abuser. Interesting...Catholic Doctrine Teaches ALL Ecumenical Councils are Infallible. It dosn't say, "Unless some guy who sexually assaulted another man says it is really a dialetical process.Then we can be sure the Holy Spirit allowed a Commie plot to flourish."

I guess for those that oppose the Council, the personal opinions of a homosexual sex abuser supercedes Catholic Doctrine. Intersesting. "And away we go......"

[Catholicguy]

<> Do you have to fight with your wife to teach your kids Catholicsim? It is YOUR duty.<>

[.45MAN]

ping

[saradippity]

I believe and I hope that we all can grow in wisdom and holiness and that may have happened to Cardinal Law.This is a very difficult situation to be in,since a wise and holy person would recognize they had been responsible for supporting things that had seemed to be A-OK,before they found Truth.So I suppose that one would have a natural inclination to try to convince the other of the error of their ways,ways,the holier,wiser man had previously approved.In so doing they may appear to compromise principles and Truth. It's wrong but I can understand how it happens.

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.

[Sursum Corda]

Rather than take cheap shots at Pete in absentia, why not contact him via his blog?

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.

Sursum Corda

[yendu bwam]

Do you have to fight with your wife to teach your kids Catholicsim? It is YOUR duty.

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.

[ultima ratio]

The Vatican assault against Lefebvre was the green light for the new religion which is being introduced by gradual changes, principally by means of the liturgy. The idea that the changes to the liturgy were inconsequential and merely a matter of discipline has always been a lie. The liturgy can alter belief--and does. At the last Gallup poll of Catholics, taken in 1992 for US News and World Report, two- thirds of all Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence--hardly surprising when the text and rubrics of the New Mass suppress any show of reverence or belief. The question is why has Rome permitted all this. Time and again it has backed-down and given-in to the left. It's almost ludicrous. A new custom is introduced illegally, then after a few years it is rigidly enforced "for the sake of uniformity." Meanwhile two-thousand year old traditions are trashed. And the Vatican plays along despite the papal oath to uphold tradition--not only doctrinally, but in its practices.

[saradippity]

Find out what bishop Rodimer's motto is,please.Thanks.

[yendu bwam]

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.

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).

[american colleen]

"Come, Lord Jesus."

Seriously. "HOMILY 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF ORDINATION TO THE PRIESTHOOD BISHOP FRANK J. RODIMER CATHEDRAL OF SAINT JOHN THE BAPTIST PATERSON"

[Maximilian]

Rather than take cheap shots at Pete in absentia, why not contact him via his blog?

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?

[yendu bwam]

This man is my bishop. He is an atrocity. He has consistently placed the welfare of children dead last. He disgusts me.

[Maximilian]

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.

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?

[yendu bwam]

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.

[ultima ratio]

You can't resist the potshots. If by the "real errors of schismatic traditionalists" you are referring to Lefebvre and his followers, show me where the errors are. They saw what was happening very clearly, they understood it was an attempt to institute a new protestantized religion which would do immeasurable harm to the Church, and they resisted its imposition. How were they wrong? They were persecuted for their pains by a pope who saw no further than his nose. Lefebvre correctly refused to obey an improper command which would have damaged the Church irreparably. Thanks to his courage and foresight, tradition is now intact and spreading throughout the world even as the Novus Ordo Church collapses in its own multiple corruptions.