Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser

Adoremus Bulletin ^ | September, 2002 | Helen Hull Hitchcock

[saradippity]

Okay Colleen,what do you think about that motto?It miffs me,it is an ancient prayer but somehow I have always been suspicious of it. Probably because when I was young we never talked about the Apocalypse (Revelations).In fact,the next time I thought I'd be asking Lord Jesus to come would be on my death bed and I'd be asking Him to come and greet me at the gates of heaven,hoping,of course,that I'd be going to there.

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.

[ultima ratio]

You think these liturgists are inspired by the highest motives of faith, do you? You think they are men of high integrity who just happen to like boinking boys and that this has no bearing on their influence in the Church? You think they are in a position to tell the rest of us that Catholic tradition got it all wrong and they have finally got it right when it comes to authentic doctrine and practice? I don't think so.

[NYer]

Thank you, Maximilian for posting such an important article. Bookmarked for permanent reference.

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.

[Catholicguy]

<> I was referencing the Ecumenical Council and the Holy Spirit. I am not surprised you missed that obvious point.<>

[Polycarp]

You can't resist the potshots. If by the "real errors of schismatic traditionalists"

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.

[Tantumergo]

"An Ecumenical Council is not susceptible to that sort of "dialetical" approach; unless you think the Holy Spirit coaxed conmmunism in the Council.."

CG I don't want to start up that whole debate on the infallibility of Vat II again, but you must agree that the "dialectical" approach has been exploited mercilessly during the Post-Conciliar period, with respect to the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Council's documents.

I have often heard liberals boasting about the divisions among conservative and traditional Catholics, as being one of the main reasons for their success. John Allen of the NCR is a recent case that comes to mind.

Lets face it - if you were the devil and you wanted to destroy the Church, where would you attack?

-the priesthood?
-the Mass?
-inflaming conflict between those who love the Mass (of whatever rite)?

Gnostics, Protestants, Modernists - they have always sought to destroy the Mass first - and the priesthood along with it. It is a certain sign of who they truly serve and they take great delight when the believers fight amongst one another!

[ultima ratio]

Your post is of the "mistakes were made" variety. Cardinal Law did not follow bad advice. He knew what he was doing. He had plenty of evidence his coverups were harming kids. He had twenty years to figure out that when he transferred a pedophile it was guaranteed that children would be abused, even raped. He even praised Shanley in a letter so he could pawn him off one more time to an unsuspecting diocese. Yet he had absolute proof--a thousand page dossier on the man--that this priest had raped a six year old and had abused hudreds of other kids, that he was an active supporter of NAMBLA. And Law had around 82 such priests that he protected for over twenty years. I'm still trying to figure out what it takes for a cardinal to have his resignation accepted by Rome after such a display of absolute unmitigated corruption. Apparently the destruction of thousands of kids' souls is not enough to get anybody fired. Certainly not for you. You're still making phony excuses for the Cardinal.

[saradippity]

Hubbard and Clark were two more of Jean Jadot's recommends. Is there any way you can find what their mottoes were?I think when they become bishop they choose a motto.I would appreciate it if you could find out.You are in one of their dioceses aren't you?Thanks.

[ultima ratio]

Absolutely right. I know a man, an ex-Jesuit, who does not believe in the divinity of Christ. He is teaching Christology in a Catholic H.S. He told me he gives both sides of the question and let's the kids decide for themselves who's right. Yeah, sure.

[saradippity]

Do you live in a diocese where the bishop was recommended by Jean Jadot?That would have been between 1972 and 1980.If you do could you find out the motto he chose when he was enthroned,or whatever it's called.Thanks.

[ultima ratio]

Nice to see you accepting the followers of Lefebvre. Are you now prepared to concede he was right?

[sinkspur]

Ultima's bishop is Richard Williamson of the SSPX. He is not affiliated with a Roman Catholic Diocese.

Williamson's motto is "I admire the Unabomber."

[Polycarp]

Are you now prepared to concede he was right?

In some things? Certainly. Heck, I'd even grant you that in most things he was generally on the right track.

But in ordaining 4 bishops instead of the 1 he was permitted, he gravely erred. End of story. No excuses, including amorphous appeals the emergency necessities. Rome has spoken.

When the Church brings the SSPX back in, I'll gladly attend their liturgies. And even before they are brought back in, I accept the laity in the SSPX movement to be brethren in the RCC, who if I am correct may receive the sacraments in any Indult or Novus Ordo mass as any other Catholic.

But those leading the SSPX and keeping it in schism are schizmatic.

I agree that there should be a general indult, that many Novus Ordo masses are illicit, that some are invalid, that the Novus Ordo liturgy does not do much in the way of catechizing the awesome reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence, that the ICEL and other translations of the Latin of the Novus Ordo are atrociuos at best, that the homopederast crisis seems to be the real fruit of the post-conciliar "spirit of V II" crowd...

we agree on so many things.

But on some things I will not and cannot agree, and on those things obviously I will say so.

[Polycarp]

by your repulsive behavior and knee jerk attacks.

By the way, just to reiterate...I'm not exactly "taking sides" in putting forward this criticism. I think it can be applied equally to the schismatics as well as the neoconservatives that fight them.

I think Steve Hand's polemics are just as repulsive and knee jerk. I think the attacks on Sungenis have been just as repulsive.

The "We Resist You To the Face" folks can handle it...they dish it out just as much as they are the subject of it.

The liberals ---heck, the DEVIL--- are thrilled by this bloodletting between "traditionalists" and conservatives, and the problem is the blurring of distinctions between "traditionalists" and "integrists" on the one hand, and "conservatives" and "neoconservatives" on the other.

Integrists (what a useless word, I admit!) as well as neoconservatives are equally guilty of repulsive behavior and knee jerk attacks.

I am too.

But these behaviors are counterproductive no matter which camp engages in them.

[Maximilian]

The liberals ---heck, the DEVIL--- are thrilled by this bloodletting between "traditionalists" and conservatives, and the problem is the blurring of distinctions between "traditionalists" and "integrists" on the one hand, and "conservatives" and "neoconservatives" on the other.

Polycarp, I think you stated your position very well in this post and the previous post sans name-calling. However, I don't agree with the general premise. It appears to me that we are going through an essential period of clarifying facts, ideas and opinions. New Information is coming to light every day. Resources that were previously unavailable are now within our reach thanks to the internet.

So it is inevitable that "traditionalist" and "conservatives" have to hash out these issues. There has to be some "bloodletting" for the truth to emerge.

Compare the situation to the political realm. Voices of moderation are always telling the Republican party to stop their infighting. In practice that always means handing over the party to the so-called moderates. Pro-lifers must continue to fight unremittingly for their position. Better that some Republicans should lose due to infighting, rather than the Whitmans and the Giulianis should be allowed to take over the party.

Right now there is no consensus in the Church, and there CAN'T be a consensus considering Her current state. There is too much disputed, too many crises, too much information unavailable for anyone to have the perfect solution.

I can't even say where I stand from day to day. Too often I'm influenced by the last person I read. But even as I try to take principled stands and rely on the rock of faith and tradition, I find that there are irreconcilable conflicts.

We are caught in a tragic situation where conflicting duties impel us in opposite directions, like Antigone who was caught between conflicting laws. There was no happy solution for her, and there may be no way out for us either. But in the meantime, it's not realistic to think that we can all just get along, anymore than it was possible for Antigone and her brothers.

[Sursum Corda]

I really do not know.

FWIW, there are some folks who have been dogging Pete ever since he broke with the SSPX many years ago. Pete is a big boy and can more than take care of his detractors in a fair and open argument. (I am not referring to you personally.)

Why don't his detractors on this thread contact him with their concerns and invite him to answer them here on FR?

I guess it is just too easy to beat up on his reputation behind his back.

Sursum Corda

[ultima ratio]

Look at what I wrote. If anybody is knee-jerk, it is you. I said IF you were referring to Lefebre and his followers. IF. You mentioned my nightmarish perspective in another post. You're right, it is nightmarish--but it is accurate. It is a nightmare to believe the traditional beliefs of the Catholic Church have been successfully targeted for decades with no one in the Vatican actively protecting the faithful from such dangers.

[Dec31,1999]

I would like to offer my insight into the Scripture in the Book of Revelation, which follows the one cited by Psalm 118:8.

The Book of Revelation also tells us that "all nations will mourn the Fall of Babylon." I had wondered why there would be mourning, instead of celebration! This year, I found my answer: All nations and banking systems of the world are in bed with the Vatican Bank!

Put "Vatican Bank Scandal" in ANY search engine, and you will learn of a scandal that is about to eclipse the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church.

Regarding Psalm 118:8's post: Psalm 118:8 spells it out, CLEARLY by citing Scriptural references in revealing how the Church has duped us for years, by hiding the Word of God from the faithful, which reveals the grave, unspeakable errors of the Catholic Church throughout the ages.

Well, now that the simple truth of the Gospel is revealed, it's time to heed the clear admonition of the Holy Spirit: "Come out of her my people!"

For those of you who have "come out," please know that you have a church-family, the Body of Christ, who is willing to welcome you with open arms, regardless the denomination, which you choose to enter. For those of you who are "still in the boat," may God reveal his beautiful righteousness to you. Once He does, the decision to stay in the Church or leave the Bondage of Rome will be a "no-brainer." The real Body of Christ, washed in His precious blood, is ready to welcome you.

I found this to be an interesting post on the site you linked. It was posted by Gabrielle23.

[ultima ratio]

Let me see if we can take this a step further. Do you agree with Thomas Aquinas and Robert Belarmine, among others, that no one, not even the pope, may command something that would seriously harm the Church? Do you agree with these doctors of the Church that in such a case we have the right, and even the duty, to resist such a command? Would you still argue despite this that JnPaulII--for all his charisma and immense popularity--had the right to command Lefebvre not to consecrate, knowing full well that the Archbishop was old and in ill health and would have no successor to assure the ordination of traditional priests, and knowing full well this would mean the destruction of the traditional Mass? Would you admit that there are limits to what even a pope may command legitimately in such a dire situation? Would you admit the past few decades sheds fresh light on what Lefebvre saw clearly as an attack on the faith itself which he properly and in good conscience rejected?

[Polycarp]

Voices of moderation are always telling the Republican party to stop their infighting.

I agree that a certain degree of debate and discussion are essential in the current crisis. But this nuke 'em till they glow approach is reprehensible and inexcusable.

We can disagree and take polar opposite positions, but do it with charity and humility and patience.

The vitriol and insulting polemics are the result of personal pride and ego and despair replacing charity and humility and hope and faith.

it is pointless to engage in the politics of personal destruction across the battle lines the integrists and neocons have drawn.

Neither side can win using such tactics. And the Church loses.

And when the Church "loses," souls are lost for eternity.

That is why I rarely engage Ultima Ratio and HDMZ on these threads, except for a brief occasional exchange.