Quote from:  damooster

However, I do have one comment to make and I hope you don't take offense: unless you have information that we do not have, I think it's kind of unfair to assume that Fr. Giardina withheld his sedevacantist position from the public for financial gain. I know of some people, including on this forum, that withhold this viewpoint simply because they don't wish to scandalize or harm others. Perhaps Fr. Giardina did not broadcast his views for the same reason?

I'm sure you could counter my statement by stating that if he held this position, he had a duty to share it, but perhaps that was a mistake on his part. Nonetheless, you, I, or anyone else will never know his reasons (unless you have information that we're not privy to).

I'm not a mind reader, to be sure, but I think it's the most likely explanation, based on the evidence.

A fear of giving offense, as you say, was indeed part of the story — but because offense would have had financial consequences.

Father Giardina began his operation by appealing for support from all types of trads and got it.

Announcing ANY sort of clear position on the pope would have inevitably ticked off SOME of the benefactors and lost part of this support. Why take the chance of killing the goose?

By maintaining a studied public ambiguity on on the question, dropping occasional hints to trads in all camps, and maintaining the "we're-too-spiritual-for-controversy" position, Fr. Giardina allowed benefactors to project their own beliefs onto him and justify their support. With so much "controversy" it's nice to feel that you're supporting a brand that's "non-controversial" and "spiritual" to boot!

In politics, this strategy is called "triangulation," and was part of Clinton's very successful fundraising program.

Unfortunately, it sowed the seeds for surrendering his monastery to the Novus Ordo.

Quote from: SJB

http://www.traditionalmass.org/blog/20... and on and on and on.....

Why am I surprised at this?

Please learn how to use tinyurl.com.

Fr. C seems to make one key assumption upon which all this speculation is based. That the Abbot thinks like him. Namely that any stance the Abbot took was shrewdly calculated to maximize profit. From what I've heard, in Fr. C's case, there is ample evidence to impute this motive. In the Abbot's case, I've not heard any evidence that would show him to be primarily focused on money. It seems never to occur to Fr. C that the Abbot could have actually taken a stance because he sincerely felt it to be the right one, money be damned.

It is interesting that a "Traditional" Catholic priest has this much free time to both prolificly blog on his website and repeatedly spend time promoting his own ideas and shooting the bull with random anonymous strangers on message boards. If we were to use the same cynical, rash, and speculative logic Fr. C applied to the Abbot's actions, I wonder what this logic could lead one to conclude about Fr. C?

In addition it is sad, but not surprising, that FE would give a public stage to this man to spread his self-promoting calumnious conjectures regarding a deceased Abbot far and wide throughout cyberspace. Speaking of hypocrisy, didn't the FE owner personally come on this board to give GV (who he previously banned) a lecture about not publicly judging priests? And this even though GV could not and did not post to FE on this issue? How much more scandalous are Fr. C's actions in that the priest he is rashly and publicly judging is not even alive to defend himself?

Perhaps there is some truth in this judgment, but Cekada exploits the situation by boasting (modestly, of course) about his personal efforts to rectify the educational inadequacies of the monks, and lamenting that Abbot Giardina did not follow through on Cekada's generous offer.

IN A PREVIOUS pamphlet, (7) I [Fr. Cekada] pointed out that one of the major causes of divisions among traditional Catholics is the tendency certain traditional clergy have to accuse fellow traditional Catholics of "crimes" and proceed to read them out of the Church. I also noted that the only fruit this has produced is endless conflict in traditional organizations, chapels and families.

At the root of this tendency is an incredible arrogance. The clergy who indulge in this "ministry of condemnation" lack any jurisdiction from church law to bind the consciences of others. Yet they merrily go their way playing prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman for the targets of their choice.

Such priests are able to get away with this only because the average traditional Catholic is unaware that church law intentionally makes it very difficult to accuse any Catholic of having willfully and through his own actions departed from the one, true Church.

If a decree from lawful authority (a papal bull, say) declares that a named individual is outside the Church, it is obvious, of course, that the person is then a "non-Catholic." But other than that, to whom may the term "non-Catholic" be applied? To four classes of persons: says the canonist Rev. Cornelius Damen CSSR: (1) the non-baptized, (2) heretics, (3) schismatics, and (4) apostates. ( 8 )

Traditional dergy occupied with the ministry of condemnation freely and frequently hurl the charge "heretic" and "schismatic" at other targets in the traditional movement. A layman, hearing these frightening terms, takes the condemnations at face value, and figures there must be something to them.

He shouldn't. Almost without exception, priest-accusers are merely slinging inflammatory invectives. When you compare what these men allege against a target with what church law really defines as "heresy" or "schism," you discover very quickly, as Southerners say, that "the ol' boys are just woofin'."

The woofing would be bad enough. But the ministers of condemnation never content themselves merely with that. They go on to say that their target of choice has incurred an ecclesiastical penalty (excommunication is a favorite) and that he's put himself outside the Church. Denial of the sacraments then follows.

The whole process is a fraud from beginning to end.

First, church law defines very precisely what a heretic is and what a schismatic is. No clergyman, unless he's gloriously reigning as Christ's Vicar, has the right to go beyond the precise meanings of those definitions. If any of the conditions church law lays down for being a heretic or a schismatic are not met, you are simply not a heretic or a schismatic.

Second, to incur the penalty for a grave crime like heresy or schism, a number of other conditions must all be present (an external act, a completed offense, mortal sin and obstinacy -- the latter not as it is commonly understood, but as the law defines it). (9) In matters where punishments are involved, more-over, a more benign interpretation (i.e., in your favor) must be followed. If there's a doubt of fact -- whether you've committed a given crime, say -- the penalty cannot be imposed, since, as one canonist notes, "it would be inhuman to do so." (10)

I returned to the internet world today (having been snowed out since late Sunday) only to discover that the SSPX canonical status/suppression thread had somehow been transformed into a miscellaneous-opinions-of -Father-Cekada thread!

But my point is still the same: If Paul VI was pope, the suppression was legal in canon law for the three reasons I outlined in reply #19. That's not a "sede" issue; that just how church law is supposed to work.

As regards Lamentabili dragging in other stuff I've written about that's not on topic: if he assumes I was infallible on something in 1990, he should probably also assume I'm infallible now and interpret me in light of tradition, rather than trying to engage in a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.