Traditional Catholic forum - message board for Catholics

Traditional Catholic Forum

A place for SSPX and other Traditional Catholics to discuss matters pertaining to the Catholic Faith
Since 2006
New: RSS Feed

Click here to start your Amazon.com session so CathInfo gets credit!

Welcome! ( login | Register ) » Catholic Info » Traditional Catholic Faith » General Discussion » MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY WI...

Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3 next >> Reply to Topic Create New Topic Create New Poll
MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY WINS LAWSUIT
Francisco
Level 3





Reputation: 754
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 926

Add Francisco to your buddy list Send an email to Francisco Send a personal messsage to Francisco Ignore all posts by Francisco  people like this post0      people dislike this post0 Reply with a quote from this post Go to the top of the page

The Schism House (Dimond brothers) reports on it's website that it has won the "Fraud and RICO" lawsuit brought against it by a former member. The website gives the details via two PDF files.



Posted Jul 24, 2012, 5:54 am
Ignored by: 0
Francisco
Level 3





Reputation: 754
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 926

Add Francisco to your buddy list Send an email to Francisco Send a personal messsage to Francisco Ignore all posts by Francisco  people like this post0      people dislike this post0 Reply with a quote from this post Go to the top of the page

AveMar1a said:
Yes, I've been aware of it for some time now, as the judgment was posted by the court online on the day it was entered: June 22, as I recall.  In any case, from the "video" posted on the Dimonds' website, it appears that the Dimonds might be setting the stage for "recovering the damages" done to their reputation and donation potential by Eric Hoyle's lawsuit.  They indicated that they are going forward with a  counter-suit in an attempt to further elicit funds from Eric Hoyle. 

And here's the sleeper . . . If I'm reading this right, the verbiage in the video also signals that they might be contemplating filing suit against certain "false traditionalist blogs" for maligning their reputations.  Or at least rattling their sabres enough to cause online dissenters to self-censor criticism of their operation.

A few years ago, I personally interacted with the Dimonds and made a few donations shortly after I converted to Catholicism.  The content of their interactions with me, as well as their unsolicited "explanation" of their lawsuit just didn't "pass the sniff test" for me.  I stopped donating, and have not regretted the decision.  I've watched the situation from near and far, and nothing has made me change my view that there's just something that doesn't pass the Ye-Shall-Know-Them-By-Their-Works Test about receiving nearly the entirety of a man's 7-figure estate prior to taking him under one's tutelage, and then leaving that man penniless . . . regardless of the specific circumstances.  Even if all of their accusations against Mr. Hoyle were true, (and I don't assume that a judgment issued by an American court is necessarity synonymous with truth), christian charity would have demanded the provision of at least minimal support after Eric's exodus.

The other thing that bothered me was the Dimonds' assertion that Eric's exit was sudden and completely unexpected.  For me, that raised a few questions: 

Was Michael Dimond, as superior of MHFM, so completely unapproachable that Mr. Hoyle chose not to discuss theological differences with him directly and professionally?  (I think we all know the answer to that question.)  Other than in his interactions with the Dimonds, there is no evidence that Eric was and is anything but a sincere, intelligent Catholic attempting to serve God, in command of his faculties, and that his understanding of how to do so has evolved over time.  I can't help but notice the abrupt change in the Dimonds' assessment of Eric's character at the time that Eric left the monastery.  The explanation that we're offered is that Eric came under some kind of evil influence overnight, if not instantaneously, and that he was transformed from a pious defender of the truth into a prideful liar and heretic, after exposure to Richard Ibryani's literature.  Frankly, I don't find that account credible, as it is inconsistent with all of my past experience of human behavior. 

Generally, the information that most people are able to review is limited to the Dimonds' account, and a few legal documents posted online, as Eric has been prudent enough not to air dirty laundry in public.  He has not thrown up a website to specifically malign or discredit the Dimonds.  If he did contact Dimond donors after his exodus, as the Dimonds allege, I find that completely understandable.  Monasteries, whether true or heretical cults, generally demand withdrawal from the outside world.  Often, that even includes nearly complete separation from family members, not to mention "friends".  The donors, the two monks who left with him, and the Dimond brothers may have been the entirety of his active support system, or at least the entirety of those who would understand his theological crisis.  He was allegedly a monk, not a hermit.

It does seem that Eric has posted his view of our current crisis in the church here, and I must say that, whether you agree with him or not, he presents as an intelligent, charitable Catholic with very strong reasoning skills.  I contrast that picture with the image that the Dimond brothers have depicted of Eric, and it seems that something is amiss.

Another thing that always nagged at the back of my mind as Michael Dimond went on about Eric's abrupt departure, was whether the failure to retain postulants and monks under his direction could possibly be just "the work of the devil" succeeding against all of the Dimonds' very pious efforts.  I tried to remember accounts of the saints that had been abbots and abbesses, and I couldn't think of anyone that was plagued by such an epidemic of heretitosis and sudden onset insanity.  Surely, I thought, there must have been some detectable clues of impending apostasy, or emotional instability, or pride, or . . . . . . I put the question to Michael, and his response was to say that he had found Eric to be "rather impressionable", but otherwise seemed rock solid prior to, and during his tenure at the monastery.  I have no reason to doubt that Michael's assessment of Eric's character was astute, right up to the point that Eric left the monastery.  After that, the account seems markedly less consistent with known human behavior, even of the demonically-possessed/obsessed type.  (Demonic possession occurs over time, "bit by bit", as Malachai Martin instructs us.)

And finally, I was put off by the rather seedy "revelations" posted online by the Dimond brothers, using Joseph Myer's account.  This seemed to me to be a very unfair and scandal-mongering use of the sheer internet power that the Dimonds kept reminding us that they commanded, as the "Most Visited Traditionalist Catholic Website".  (I just surfed over to their site, and could no longer find that claim.  Fiat voluntas tua.)  That post, and the discrepancies in Michael's public and private accounts of the situation, were the factors that made me wary.  Eric, for all I could tell, was no where to be found. 


Sorry about the tome, folks, but I've been watching the posts about this situation for some time, and it seems like the right time to speak up.



A well known Traditional Catholic cleric said in an interview that the major problem confronting his group was that it is accountable to no one. This seems to be a major and common problem with all Traditionalist  organizations. Even, as recent events have shown, when a society has some sort of hierarchical structure, and a semblance of at least some accountability,  there seems to be an underlying push towards authoritarianism. A Crisis within the Crisis?

Posted Jul 25, 2012, 6:54 am
Ignored by: 0
Francisco
Level 3





Reputation: 754
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 926

Add Francisco to your buddy list Send an email to Francisco Send a personal messsage to Francisco Ignore all posts by Francisco  people like this post0      people dislike this post0 Reply with a quote from this post Go to the top of the page

AveMar1a said:
Hi, Francisco;

Indeed, no accountability is one of the symptoms of the fact that none of the traditionalist lineages can claim that they were "sent" by Rome.  Just as the word "apostle" means "one who is sent" [by Christ, in this case], the bishops are sent forth by Christ's vicar, and they, in turn, send forth the clergy to provide the sacraments and instruct the laity in the faith.  Hence, the Church is one, holy, Catholic, and APOSTOLIC. 

I have come to realize, as Eric points out in his essay, that the problem with the so-called traditionalist lineages, is that they are not apostolic.  That is, they are not sent by the church.  Hence, validity, which, under the circumstances, cannot be known with utter certainty, is irrelevant.  These lineages, as far as I can determine, do not have the authority or jurisdiction to have public masses, teach the faithful, or absolve their sins. 

Now, to flesh out this assertion even further, and breaking down the description of the Church, from the Nicene Creed:  One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, I find it hard to apply these words to the so-called "traditionalist" lineages.  They are definitely not ONE; the constant online bickering and ad hominem attacks between bishops testifies to that.  I leave it to the reader to review their own experiences to conclude whether the "traditionalist" clergy are HOLY.  "CATHOLIC" means "universal", and certainly none of the lineages can claim universality.  And finally, they are certainly not sent by Rome, which would have made them APOSTOLIC.

Yes, I know how difficult this is to accept.  And yes, I know how seductive the concept of epikeia is.  But the fact is that the sacraments are extremely helpful, but not utterly necessary for salvation, and Our Lady has, through various apparitions, promised extraordinary (all puns intended) interventions for the faithful in the end times.  So, given the atrocious behavior of the so-called "traditionalist" clergy, and the fact that obedience and loyalty to the true Catholic Church is more essential than the sacraments, I have personally come to the conclusion that the Church is truly in eclipse, as Our Lady of LaSalette prophesied, and that our essential work, as when the actual Body of Christ was in the tomb, is to pray and know that He will rise.  Taking the matter into our own hands is what has led to all of these aberrant clerical manifestations within the "traditionalist" lineages.




Hello AveMaria,
I think it was Hutton Gibson who used a Mencken quote to describe some of our Traditionalist clergy: They strut even when seated.
Coming to Apostolicity, how will the promise of Jesus hold, namely that He will be with the Church until the end of time?. If the Hierarchy has fallen into apostasy how will the believing and faithful laity retain the four marks of the Church?. People like Gibson wanted Abp. Lefebvre and Abp. Thuc to publicly declare that the Hierarchy of the Church was in apostasy, before carrying out any apostolate at all.
I once witnessed a discussion between a Novus Ordo priest and a Traditional one. The former insisted that only the local ordinary could "send" someone to do apostolic work in his diocese.

Posted Jul 26, 2012, 5:35 am
Ignored by: 0
Pages: << prev 1, 2, 3 next >> Reply to Topic Create New Topic Create New Poll View Printable