Lover of Truth
Level 3
Reputation: 32
(Likers: 31 / Critics: 22)
Group: Members
Posts: 893
Joined: Aug 21, 2009
|
I just wanted to give you (Mr. Ahearn) may belated condolences on the way you were treated by Bishop Dolan. I read what you wrote in The Four Marks and was very impressed with what you wrote. Any rational human being would have seen the error of his ways after reading that and what Father Stepanich wrote on the topic. When I mention error, I am additionally speaking of the uncharitable error of using the Sacraments as a weapon and berating a good holy Catholic disabled widow in the process. I had believed AC/Dolan to be the cream of the crop but it seems I was quite wrong. Clergy like that make the traditional movement in general and the SV in particular look unappealing and seemingly for that reason an unlikely legitimate conclusion based upon the “fruits” of the SV opinion and the traditional movement.
Kathleen Plumb turned me onto a blog with an Ode to AC. I had never seen the blog before. I contacted Mr. Shea in regards to a letter that was written about the improper clerical behavior that goes on at SSG by Mr. Gebel. Back in about 2005 I met a lady who said “Father Cekeda is gay.” I said, “Yeah right.” And she replied, “HE IS! I KNOW HIS BOYFRIEND!!”. I did not pursue the conversation as I had recently come to the SV conclusion and did not want to believe what she had said. I mentioned this to no one until very recently. Kathleen Plumb got a semi-confirmation from this lady that I no longer have the contact information for. The lady evidently did not want her name attached to this accusation.
I had written and anti una cum Benedicto article in the Daily Catholic but after having seen an article written by Griff Ruby that was edited for the same site, though not posted I was convinced that I could be wrong. I had never been convinced 100% either way on the issue. But due to Griff’s article I wanted to clarify my position on Daily Catholic in case anyone took my article to heart and therefore needlessly started to deprive themselves of the Sacraments. During this time I got in a debate with Tom Droleskey who proceeded to go behind my back to Michael Cain, the editor of Daily Catholic to make sure he did not allow me to write such an article. Tom thought this would be the worst time for such an article to appear since SSPX is supposedly dissolving before our very eyes which in his mind renders the whole una cum Benedicto controversy mute anyway. Of course it does not render it mute as there are numerous independent chapels that offer the una cwm Benedicto Mass and most SSPX priests are valid as well.
Mike Cain, was very angered that I shared the edited but unposted (on Daily Catholic) article which refutes Father Cekeda’s points on the topic. But this article is posted on Griff’s site. Mike had a very unCatholic attitude towards me over the topic, perhaps partly because he wants to stay in the good graces of Father Cekeda, Bishop Dolan and Tom Droleskey. He compared me to Hand because I went back and forth over this highly controversial issue. He berated me in an e-mail that was cc’d to Father Cekeda and Bishop Dolan (I was blocked from their blog which I had never been on before) and perhaps Tom Droleskey and Griff Ruby. I responded with questions he was unable to answer about the topic. Eventually Tom Droleskey admitted he was wrong about what he did and admitted to going to Confession over what he did. Mike also apologized to me. Shortly after this I realized that Tom had written a scathing article against Kathleen Plumb over the issue. I then called Tom on this and I was not too Catholic in my letter to him over the topic. We have since ceased communicating.
Part of what raised my ire against the SSG clergy (and laity new to SV that take de fide stances over those much more qualified to speak on the issue) was the returning of $100 I sent for 10 Masses to be offered because it was not enough money for them. They were going to send the money to very poor clergy in Mexico who really would have benefitted from it but instead sent the money back to me, even though I said they could just offer 5 Masses instead. Griff Ruby makes what could appear to make a very slight suggestion that money could be part of the motive that could be behind their anti una cum Benedicto stance though he says this was not his intent and Tom Droleskey thought that I was the one who made that suggestion. Tom claimed to have lost sleep over the gall someone would have to dare even suggest such a possibility.
I do know firsthand that AC/Dolan have been used to answering to no one outside their little clan for a very long time and perhaps this is the reason why they have the prideful arrogant attitude that never admits to being wrong or apologizes for any wrong doing. Perhaps they truly believe they never do wrong, God only knows. I am thinking about sharing a letter I received from Mr. Shea which anyone on this blog can get from (Veritatis Gladius?) with some friends of mine that shows specific instances of their abuse of their laity because I do not believe such people deserve financial support. I believe those who try to unite the flock such as the CMRI, Father Vailancourt, Father Stepanich, Bishop McKenna and others like them deserve our support.
BTW – I asked a somewhat prominent SV Priest (not Father Stepanich) his thoughts on the una cwm issue and whether it is right to withhold the Sacraments from the laity over an issue which the SV clergy themselves are divided over and here was his response:
___
I share the same opinion as you on this matter. While the sedevacantist has made a decision in conscience not to recognize the authority of the leaders of the modern church, they do so based on matters of principle and the practical application of Church teachings and magisterial works. This is an undefined position in the Church, although the Council Father of the Vatican Council of 1870 discussed it quite a bit before defining papal infallibility.
I am sorry there are people to take a harsher view in this matter. I have read their reasoning behind such statements but continue to disagree with them.
___
Regarding whether this type letter should be shared? A friend has the following response to writer of the about the topic:
___
I have to wonder what this person now plans to do for Church. Will he go to the SSPV or SSPX church? Either of those would be the wise thing to do. Might he become a home-aloner? He discussed the possibility but it didn’t sound like that’s what he plans to do. Might he go to the Novus Ordo? How long would he have to be there before he sees them doing all the same exact things, only on that much larger scale possible from there still being so many of them?
It is one thing to criticize the way that authority has been abused, or even how certain authority figures are behaving most scandalously, but quite another to hint that they might not have that authority. They most certainly do, and by all rights. Canonically speaking, Bp. Dolan is the exact equivalent to the Apostle Paul in the Bible. He is not Pope, but neither does he have any particular diocese that he is confined to. This is in fact the exact canonical status of all traditional bishops, who therefore are all to be regarded as canonical equals, and no one of them has the authority to judge any other, nor their respective flock, except at the universal consent of all of them. And to what extent he has failed to act as St. Paul acted, for that he shall receive a heavy judgment, be assured.
If it was me, I wouldn’t be writing these sorts of letters to the world. I would approach the person privately. If that settles it, great. If not, then the next time they see me I will have a policeman in one hand and a Court Order in the other, and with interested members of the Press parked just outside.
__
It is unfortuneate that the people that are supposed to know the most about Catholicism act the least like Catholics.
I do agree with my friend that if the case made in the letter is true that the culprits should be brought to justice because it seems that they do not listen to reason. Being brought to justice seems to be the only thing that works.
|
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 10:46 am |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
Raoul76
Level 5
Reputation: 1688
(Likers: 131 / Critics: 97)
Group: Users
Posts: 5,489
Joined: May 10, 2009
|
I have been loosely following this fracas for the last day. There are a couple points to be noted:
* Almost everyone who retains a shred of objectivity has recommended that Mr. Shea contact the authorities if he has proof of wrongdoing, and to keep quiet if he doesn't.
* The innuendos about windowless back rooms and wicked sede priests giving children candy are extremely dangerous. However bullied or brainwashed someone might feel that the parishioners are at SGG, do you really think that the parents there would overlook such activities if they were really occuring? Do you think that Tom Droleskey, who has made his non-career outing perverted bishops, would tolerate that? He himself has other options for sede chapels besides SGG and isn't forced to go there.
*It is interesting that ChantCD, despite his "neutral" ( read: passive-aggressive and subtly anti-sedevacantist ) stance, banned the two people in the thread with Mr. Shea's "Ode To Reality."
*
|
.........................
Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 5:45 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
Matthew
Level 5
Reputation: 2529
(Likers: 161 / Critics: 57)
Group: moderator
Posts: 11,694
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
|
Raoul,
If you won't take the 2 minutes to read my explanation of why William/Laurencio were banned, then I certainly will not waste any time explaining myself again. Go read my explanation.
To condescend to your apparent laziness, I will post it right here for your convenience:
-------------------------------------------
No, he wouldn't be banned for defending SGG. No one ever has.
I've banned a few people for creating multiple accounts, accusing the forum owner of grievous sin, insubordination, etc.
But if William, Laurencio, etc. (all the same guy, chances are) had stuck to arguing with Gladius, even in a heated manner, they would not have been banned.
But William, Laurencio, Brent Sanders, etc. were probably all the same man: a violation of CathInfo rules against holding multiple accounts.
They had several things in common, which common sense tells me can't be a coincidence:
* same attitude toward Gladius
* same attitude toward other posters here, and towards the forum owner
* same argument/problem with Gladius' words & actions
* none of them learned from the "others" mistakes -- so it's probably one stubborn person rather than 5.
* all of them were VERY "into" the issue while their accounts were active. They were near-obsessed with it; so it makes sense that, having been banned, they would re-join.
Like I said, I expect people to leave me out of it. I'm hosting the forum, and I leave you to your own arguments. When two Catholics get into a heated argument about a given issue, it's very tempting for both approach the moderator to try and get his opponent banned for heresy. There is little in matters of Faith that "doesn't matter", right? One of the opponents has to be in heresy, right? And heresy has no right to a voice. "Freedom of speech isn't a Catholic concept", etc.
But you see how that would destroy all good discussion on matters of importance. So I usually ignore such requests. But WilliamLaurencioBrentSanders wouldn't let it rest; he continued to attack this forum and me personally. So, for the good of the forum, I banned him/them.
Matthew
|
.........................
Amazon.com sells just about everything, and they have excellent prices.
Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase! It costs you nothing extra.
Buy from Amazon.com and support CathInfo
Thank you,
Matthew
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 6:12 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Matthew
Level 5
Reputation: 2529
(Likers: 161 / Critics: 57)
Group: moderator
Posts: 11,694
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
|
Here is another relevant post:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=8093
Debate, censorship, and CathInfo
Debate is an important and inevitable action for those who believe in something. It is inevitable because, with our limited intellects, human beings are capable of understanding or focusing on only one element of a complex issue. When I say "debate", I mean two people discussing a topic where there is controversy or disagreement. Often times the passions become involved -- even to a major degree.
I believe debate should go as unhindered as possible, and should be given a place to occur without being nipped in the bud. That place is CathInfo.
So why have some people been banned from CathInfo?
Well, for a variety of reasons, usually a gross mismatch between the person and CathInfo. For example, CathInfo is a Catholic forum; a freethinker ordained in the Church of Divine Man should look elsewhere for his online socializing. Likewise, trolls, spammers, and blasphemers would only destroy a perfectly good forum -- so they are banned without ceremony or remorse.
But what about those who strongly disagree with the moderator, or the majority of people here? Should they be allowed to stay?
I would answer "Yes", as long as they respect the authority of the moderator. But no one can slap an authority in the face -- publicly -- and expect nothing to happen. For good order, something has to be done, or else everyone would disdain the authority. There would be chaos. Whether the authority is great or small, the principle is the same.
CathInfo is only a humble Traditional Catholic forum, but if you want to be a member of this humble forum, you need to behave yourself at least somewhat.
In conclusion, I would say that debate is never censored here, except in cases where the debate shouldn't exist in the first place ("Is Jesus Christ God?"). What is censored/forbidden is impudence against the forum and management thereof. No one can have a problem with the forum defending itself in an efficient manner (i.e., banning the offender).
Matthew
|
.........................
Amazon.com sells just about everything, and they have excellent prices.
Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase! It costs you nothing extra.
Buy from Amazon.com and support CathInfo
Thank you,
Matthew
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 6:16 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Raoul76
Level 5
Reputation: 1688
(Likers: 131 / Critics: 97)
Group: Users
Posts: 5,489
Joined: May 10, 2009
|
Oops, didn't mean to post that. Lately I've been lurking and then deleting my posts before sending them. I was halfway through that one!
But since the damage is done, I was going to say that I found it interesting that two people were banned who I felt were speaking very reasonably, William and Laurencio, neither of whom condoned any crimes going on at SGG -- if indeed there are such crimes -- but suggested, again like most people of good sense, that indulging in open, angry mockery may not be the way to handle such a grave situation. I also didn't see how they had attacked you, ChantCD, and so what if they did? Are you that sensitive?
On the multiple-accounts issue you may have a point, as long as you warned them first and gave them a chance to stop. But whether or not they deserved banishment, I find your attitude a little creepy, ChantCD, your use of terms like "insubordination" as well as the way you claim "authority." Like your masters at SSPX, you need to define your terms, because you shift between "neutral" and Stalin-like with alarming ease.
But yes, it is your site, and I don't say that to curry favor or kiss up. Far from fearing banishment, I have no inclination to post here anymore, for personal reasons.
But to throw my two cents in on the SGG situation, I am torn on this because, if there is cultish behavior going on, it would be a sin to hush up about it. Parents need to be put on their guard, and perhaps Mr. Shea has no other way to do so than to create public scandal. Perhaps no one will listen otherwise. Perhaps all he has to go on is a feeling, but my mom had that same "feeling" about a pre-school she almost sent me to that was right around the corner from my house -- McMartin's. Look it up!
At the same time, he has too much of a personal investment and it can't be good for his own soul to be this consumed with rage. I also don't care for the gang-like mentality of people on this board and how they all have decided that Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada are the gay Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the sede movement, reprobates and freaks, without need of any further proof than Mr. Shea's allegations.
For the record, I have heard the same kind of rumors about many priests at SSPX -- where these guys got their start, by the way. So maybe this is an SSPX problem after all, and not a sedevacantist problem? Actually it is a problem that infects the whole Church these days, and more charity and diplomacy is necessary to handle it.
If anything Mr. Shea's actions will probably rally the SGGers around Bishop Dolan. Now that the cat is out of the bag, for better or for worse, the best thing to do would be to pass the baton to those who are more clear-headed like "loversoftruth."
|
.........................
Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 7:20 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Level 5
Reputation: 634
(Likers: 96 / Critics: 44)
Group: Users
Posts: 4,072
Joined: Sep 12, 2006
|
| Raoul76 said: | I have been loosely following this fracas for the last day. There are a couple points to be noted:
* Almost everyone who retains a shred of objectivity has recommended that Mr. Shea contact the authorities if he has proof of wrongdoing, and to keep quiet if he doesn't.
* The innuendos about windowless back rooms and wicked sede priests giving children candy are extremely dangerous. However bullied or brainwashed someone might feel that the parishioners are at SGG, do you really think that the parents there would overlook such activities if they were really occuring? Do you think that Tom Droleskey, who has made his non-career outing perverted bishops, would tolerate that? He himself has other options for sede chapels besides SGG and isn't forced to go there.
*It is interesting that ChantCD, despite his "neutral" ( read: passive-aggressive and subtly anti-sedevacantist ) stance, banned the two people in the thread with Mr. Shea's "Ode To Reality."
* |
With regard to Mr. Droleskey, surely you cannot be serious?
We are down to whether Tom Droleskey tolerates something?
Or does not tolerate something? 
:sign-party-time:
|
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 8:16 pm |
|
Ignored by: 5
|
|
|
Matthew
Level 5
Reputation: 2529
(Likers: 161 / Critics: 57)
Group: moderator
Posts: 11,694
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
|
| Raoul76 said: |
But since the damage is done, I was going to say that I found it interesting that two people were banned who I felt were speaking very reasonably, William and Laurencio, neither of whom condoned any crimes going on at SGG -- if indeed there are such crimes -- but suggested, again like most people of good sense, that indulging in open, angry mockery may not be the way to handle such a grave situation. I also didn't see how they had attacked you, ChantCD, and so what if they did? Are you that sensitive?
On the multiple-accounts issue you may have a point, as long as you warned them first and gave them a chance to stop. But whether or not they deserved banishment, I find your attitude a little creepy, ChantCD, your use of terms like "insubordination" as well as the way you claim "authority." Like your masters at SSPX, you need to define your terms, because you shift between "neutral" and Stalin-like with alarming ease.
|
Eamon was also speaking very reasonably. He didn't even post anything for months after the event -- that's a very controlled, sane, level personality. Rage? I don't see it.
And I would think it common sense that the owner of any forum has a certain amount of "authority" -- if only because it's his website.
I admitted (and will readily admit) that CathInfo is only a humble web forum -- a big nothing in the scheme of things -- but if one desires to be a part of that humble forum, one must abide by the rules. At least not slap the owner in the face, publicly, and expect to get away with it!
I don't mind if someone bests me in an argument -- good for them. It's happened before on here.
If you had a forum, and someone was personally attacking you (accusing you of grave sin, etc.) wouldn't you ban them if you had the ability? Why waste breath arguing with someone, especially when you know it will get you nowhere. Most of the time, arguing doesn't stop anything and is a total waste of time.
I see nothing unreasonable about that.
Matthew
|
.........................
Amazon.com sells just about everything, and they have excellent prices.
Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase! It costs you nothing extra.
Buy from Amazon.com and support CathInfo
Thank you,
Matthew
|
| Posted Aug 22, 2009, 8:22 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
