Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left  (Read 1279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
« on: September 22, 2022, 11:50:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  From the letter of Mr. Hoyle to the followers of the Dimonds: "Frederick's policy that entrants to MHFM must transfer their assets to the “monastery” is in flagrant
    violation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which has provisions to safeguard the property of entrants into a religious community" https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2165/letter-followers-dimond-bros-hoyle 

    Canon 568

    In the course of the novitiate, if a novice renounces his benefices or goods in any manner or encuмbers [them], the renunciation or obligation is not only illicit, but by the law it is invalid.


    Canon 570

    Whatever the aspirant brought and has not consumed by use shall be restored to him if he leaves the religious [institute] without having given profession.

    I guess when Mr. Hoyle left he has already made his profession: "there was no novitiate at all at MHFM, in the sense of a period of instruction and
    spiritual formation in preparation for life as a consecrated religious. There was no program of studies;
    there was no change in my daily routine when I became a novice or when I became a professed monk."

    So technically Canon 570 couldn't apply since he made his profession, but since his handing over all his money happened while still a postulate, it was invalid anyway, and he had the right to take back his money that wasn't already spent, since they had no right to ask him to hand over all his money when he was still a postulate.


    Related source treating the issue: http://www.23rdstreet.com/mhfm/eric_hoyle.aspx


















    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #1 on: September 23, 2022, 05:41:10 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dimond slanderers are out in full force again.  And they hide like cockroaches in the Anon forum.  As I understood it, Hoyle gave them the money before he formally became a novice.  I love how it’s now Mr. Hoyle ... even though he denounced MHFM for being too liberal.  You can’t ungive money and pretend it’s yours after you gave it away freely.


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6863
    • Reputation: +3889/-720
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #2 on: September 23, 2022, 03:42:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • That website supports the testimonies of both Richard Ibranyi (a nutcase) and some ex-MHFM supporter who apostatized to Eastern "Orthodoxy".
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth." [2 Cor. 3:6]

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #3 on: September 23, 2022, 05:51:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting controversy. I just had to look. We live in a world of scandal and publicity and this one's not without its level of interest. The Dimonds are hard hitters and like to play hardball. They can get Omaha steaks, a new grill, some beer and improve the grounds and properties, etc. Maybe play some Bitcoin for fortunate blessings or luck. Everybody has to endeavor to persevere.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #4 on: September 23, 2022, 05:53:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the letter of Mr. Hoyle to the followers of the Dimonds: "Frederick's policy that entrants to MHFM must transfer their assets to the “monastery” is in flagrant
    violation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which has provisions to safeguard the property of entrants into a religious community" https://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/2165/letter-followers-dimond-bros-hoyle

    Canon 568

    In the course of the novitiate, if a novice renounces his benefices or goods in any manner or encuмbers [them], the renunciation or obligation is not only illicit, but by the law it is invalid.


    Canon 570

    Whatever the aspirant brought and has not consumed by use shall be restored to him if he leaves the religious [institute] without having given profession.

    I guess when Mr. Hoyle left he has already made his profession: "there was no novitiate at all at MHFM, in the sense of a period of instruction and
    spiritual formation in preparation for life as a consecrated religious. There was no program of studies;
    there was no change in my daily routine when I became a novice or when I became a professed monk."

    So technically Canon 570 couldn't apply since he made his profession, but since his handing over all his money happened while still a postulate, it was invalid anyway, and he had the right to take back his money that wasn't already spent, since they had no right to ask him to hand over all his money when he was still a postulate.


    Related source treating the issue: http://www.23rdstreet.com/mhfm/eric_hoyle.aspx
    Pfeiffer tried to do the same to the ilk at his compound.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #5 on: September 23, 2022, 06:08:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good grief. I just found out Judge Wapner was a Jєω. Anyway, he made it to 97. If he'd made it to the birthday he'd have made it to 98. The Dimonds would've been big fish for a Wapner case.



    It seems he handles this pizza dispute well.

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #6 on: September 23, 2022, 11:14:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://casetext.com/case/hoyle-v-dimond-5



    Quote
    Despite plaintiff's assertion of a written docuмent, he has not produced a contract specifying an amount of money to be returned to him and has not pled a claim for breach of contract. He asks this court to examine the equities and find that the defendants have been wrongfully enriched by his donations to MHFM. The record reflects that plaintiff was not misled regarding MHFM's lack of affiliation with the recognized Order of St. Benedict and that he agreed with the defendants' view of traditional Catholicism. Plaintiff admitted that the Dimonds never required that he donate all his money to the monastery, yet he chose to make substantial donations to MHFM and never specified in writing the amount he sought upon leaving the monastery. His assertion now that he was misled as to the establishment of MHFM as a Benedictine community requires a examination of doctrinal issues that is prohibited by The First Amendment. As plaintiff has not raised a genuine issue of material fact to suggest that he was the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation, the defendants have established that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the equitable claims.


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #7 on: September 24, 2022, 04:57:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dimond slanderers are out in full force again.  And they hide like cockroaches in the Anon forum.  As I understood it, Hoyle gave them the money before he formally became a novice.  I love how it’s now Mr. Hoyle ... even though he denounced MHFM for being too liberal.  You can’t ungive money and pretend it’s yours after you gave it away freely.
    The facts are all presented in the lawsuit of Hoyle v. Dimonds.  He did make donations prior to becoming a novice, $700 and then $65,000, but the big amount over $1,000,000 was given after he joined.  


    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #8 on: September 24, 2022, 05:34:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dimonds too liberal? Where would he go instead?

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #9 on: September 24, 2022, 06:01:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The person was there long enough to take vows, one of the vows of Benedictines is stability which makes Hoyle in violation of his vows. He has no rights here nor should he have any recourse. The money rightfully belongs to MHFM

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6863
    • Reputation: +3889/-720
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #10 on: September 24, 2022, 06:46:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dimonds too liberal? Where would he go instead?
    You've never heard of Richard Ibranyi, have you? He's more "to the right" of the Dimonds because he believes there hasn't been a valid Pope since Innocent II and that Ss. Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori and Vincent Ferrer are in hell. Along with his belief that he is one of the two witnesses.
    "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" [2 Tim. 4:3]

    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "For the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth." [2 Cor. 3:6]


    Offline confederate catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 793
    • Reputation: +276/-42
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #11 on: September 24, 2022, 07:31:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was the last anonymous saying that MHFM didn't owe anything, I forgot to check the non anonymous 
    قامت مريم، ترتيل وفاء جحا و سلام جحا

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #13 on: September 24, 2022, 10:41:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You guys speak out of both sides of your mouth.

    On the one hand you claim that MHFM is not an actual Benedictine monastery, but then on the other try to apply Canon Law to Hoyle's "novitiate".  If your first claim was true, Hoyle was never a novice of any kind, but if your second were to hold, you have to concede that MHFM is a canonically-recognized Benedictine monastery.

    So which one is it?

    Finally, these canons deal with the mandatory renunciation of possessions that must take place in some religious orders.  There's no Canon that prevents a novice or postulant from freely doing whatever he wants with his money/possessions.  He could give it away to family, to other charitable organizations, or to the monastery itself as a donation.  And that's exactly what Hoyle did.  He decided to give them most of the money even before he went there.  Link above to the court proceedings is very well written and lays out all the facts.  Hoyle admitted in the court proceedings that the Dimonds never asked him for the money, but just told him that to become a Benedictine he's have to renounce his possessions (part of the rule).

    Judge actually flushed out Hoyle pretty nicely.  MHFM clearly admit that they're not a Benedictine monastery that's officially recognized by the V2 Church.  At one point, Hoyle just decided, based on Ibranyi, that MHFM were heretics, and wanted his money back.  This court case that the Dimonds mis-represented their being "real" Benedictines was completely dishonest on Hoyle's part.

    Interestingly, the Judge also dismissed Hoyle's assertion that Brother Natale did not have permissions to establish MHFM, saying that the statement made in 2012 by this "Archabbot", over 50 years after the fact, simply to the effect that he had no records of Brother Natale there being a professed religious, (because he wasn't), does not demonstrate that it didn't happen exactly as the Dimond Brothers lay out, that he had permission from the Archabbot to found a Benedictine community.  I imagine Brother Natale related this in a conversation with the Dimond Brothers based on a conversation he in turn had with the original Archabbot.  In any case, the Benediction Congregation makes it clear that there's no formal Benedictine organization and that anyone who claims to adhere to or follow the Rule of St. Benedict cannot be denied the name Benedictine (something I had not known before).  St. Benedict historically created his rule for laymen.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 32377
    • Reputation: +19214/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dimonds not returning the money of a former member who left
    « Reply #14 on: September 24, 2022, 10:48:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • From the letter of Mr. Hoyle to the followers of the Dimonds: "Frederick's policy that entrants to MHFM must transfer their assets to the “monastery” is in flagrant ...

    THIS is a flagrant lie by Hoyle.  Judge flushed out the truth in the proceedings, from e-mails, from journal entries by Hoyle, and from admissions made by Hoyle himself that the Dimond Brothers NEVER told him that he must transfer his assets to the monastery, just that he would have to renounce them before he entered.  Hoyle simply decided to do so, and donated a large part of it even before he went there.  In fact, there were emails to his accountant that his money had just become a burden to him and he wanted to give it all away.