Author Topic: Dolan Cekada Scandal (Read 21295 times)

Matthew · « **on:** January 28, 2010, 09:53:17 AM »

Bishop Daniel Dolan and Fr. Anthony Cekada Scandal at St. Gertrude the Great church and school

Fr. Ramolla was kicked out, the Lotarskis are under fire, and reports of scandal coming from many quarters:

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=7888

There are many other threads in the "Crisis in the Church" subforum, for those trying to get to the bottom of what's going on.

For bringing this scandal to light, Eamon Shea's reputation is being smeared.

This scandal is now in its 2nd year! Who knows what 2010 will bring. May God have mercy on all Catholics involved.

Matthew

Raoul76 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:14:51 AM »

There is absolutely nothing wrong with suspicions. St. Francis is against "rash judgments" but says nothing about suspicions, which are not judgments at all. Christ Himself suspected the Pharisees of trying to draw Him into verbal traps -- would you say He was being "rash" and unfairly judging the Pharisees, who may have just been trying to get to know Him better? Was Jesus being "rash" when He didn't blindly trust the devil who offered Him the world, was He wrongly suspecting the devil who might have had good motives at heart?

I'm sure 008 that you have heard we should be wise as serpents and soft as doves. Does one become "wise as a serpent" by trusting everyone until it has been proven in a court of law that they are malicious?

I get really tired of people hiding behind accusations of slander when any kind of evil or weirdness is pointed out. It makes me automatically distrust them. We live in an evil, weird time, or haven't you noticed?

Then you say we must have facts before speaking, once again contradicting your own article. St. Francis de Sales says: "If there be only a slight appearance of evil, say no more than that; if it be a question of some trifling imprudence, do not make it out to be more." A "slight appearance of evil" is just that, an appearance that leads to suspicion, not a provable fact that evil is being committed.

I could have stated actual FACTS that may have been seen as damaging about my experience with the sedevacantist clergy, but preferred simply to put people on their guard. Some facts can be deceptive, or lead to conclusions that are wrong, or seem more damaging than they really are. Facts can be much more unfair than suspicions; they can be taken out of context to make wrong judgments.

It is the motive that counts. As St. Francis de Sales says, we must measure every word carefully, while truly wishing for the good of our brother, not speaking maliciously or with pleasure in another's problems. That is the key. What is the motive behind the revelation: Is it the exposure of evil and/or heresy? Is it to protect children? Is it to protect ourselves? Is it to push someone down to build ourselves up?

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2010, 08:28:20 AM »

Quote from: 008

Raoul76, Matthew and the others---Do as you wish. But St. Francis out of concern for our souls has spoken the truth. It is up to us to listen or not.

And he also said this, 008:

Quote from: St. Francis DeSales

If you would be justified in condemning a neighbour's sin, you must be sure that it is needful either for his good or that of others to do so. For instance, if light, unseemly conduct is spoken of before young people in a way calculated to injure their purity, and you pass it over, or excuse it, they may be led to think lightly of evil, and to imitate it; and therefore you are bound to condemn all such things freely and at once, unless it is obvious that by reserving your charitable work of reprehension to a future time, you can do it more profitably.

SJB · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2010, 08:51:09 AM »

Quote from: St Francis de Sales

"If there be only a slight appearance of evil, say no more than that; if it be a question of some trifling imprudence, do not make it out to be more."

Except we are not talking about a "trifling imprudence" or a "slight appearance of evil".

SJB · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2010, 09:53:08 AM »

Quote from: 008

Quote
Except we are not talking about a "trifling imprudence" or a "slight appearance of evil".

Prove your charges then---innuendo about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is made here against almost all trad groups---there is a moral obligation; it is not optional. Broadbrushing is immoral. Be specific and prove every allegation.

Otherwise heed St. Francis for your soul's sake.

I don't think you understand that we can be morally certain of something without it being docuмented with a court proceeding. The court proceeding is also a moral judgment with a degree of certainty that is less than absolute.

Your call for this type of "proof" is unfounded.

Again, here is St. Francis de Sales:

Quote

If you would be justified in condemning a neighbour's sin, you must be sure that it is needful either for his good or that of others to do so. For instance, if light, unseemly conduct is spoken of before young people in a way calculated to injure their purity, and you pass it over, or excuse it, they may be led to think lightly of evil, and to imitate it; and therefore you are bound to condemn all such things freely and at once, unless it is obvious that by reserving your charitable work of reprehension to a future time, you can do it more profitably.

In the above, I see no requirement for a court decision before one can act.