Author Topic: Dolan Cekada Scandal (Read 20248 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2010, 11:09:23 AM »

1) SLANDER is never permitted because it's a LIE.

2) DETRACTION. In the case of secret things that cannot harm others, it's sinful (the gravity of which depends directly on the gravity of the fault in question). We have an obligation, however, to help protect people from harm first, even if as a secondary unintended consequence a person might lose his good name.

In the meantime, 008, you may in fact be slandering individuals in accusing them of commiting the "mortal sin" of slander. If what they are saying is true, then your accusations of slander are in fact slanderous.

Ironically, the NO has covered the tracks of various predators (and enabled them to commit more and more sins against children) precisely by using false arguments from "charity".

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2010, 11:18:30 AM »

Quote from: 008

And St Francis this..

"If you are one of the least important persons present, it is probably not your place to censure..." even in true and provable cases

He insists it must be provable, without any hint of malice, glee, or exaggeration. Can this list pass that test in truth and in justice? We stand before God, our souls.

I see precious little proved, but much asserted with glee I'm afraid.

That sounds like a rash judgment against CathInfo and its members, to me.

Can you PROVE anything you've asserted? How about give me quotes from the Ode thread (or any other thread) where things seem to be reported with glee?

Because I'll have you know that posts by Sedetrad (for example) have been removed from the Ode thread, because HE WAS crossing the line into being a bit too "gleeful" about this whole mess, and I took several hours out of my busy schedule to clean up the Ode thread a bit -- so that it doesn't cross that line anymore. I deleted the uncharitable posts.

The fact that they WERE there is nothing against me. After all, I don't control the people who visit this forum. This is a forum, not a personal blog. However, I am the moderator, so I *can* delete offensive posts. That is all I can do. I can't make them "never exist in the first place".

Perhaps your allegation is merely a couple months out of date?

If you can find a few stragglers (posts), I'd be happy to consider deleting them as well.

Matthew

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:07:45 PM »

For the zillionth time:

Did Our Lord or Saint John the Baptist pull out Polaroids or notarized docuмents when he lit up the Pharisees, calling them VIPERS before masses of people?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:11:06 PM »

Quote from: 008

Both the Church and civil society establish intricate legal criteria to protect the accused from all this, and for good reason.

And if this were a court of law, whether civil or ecclesiastical, such comments might mean something.

The Vipers of Vaudeville know darn well I am not afraid to meet them in such a venue.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:20:40 PM »

Quote from: 008

Be specific and prove every allegation.

FWIW:

The following was taken from the testimony of Richard Sipe at a sex abuse trial:

"sɛҳuąƖ violations by their nature are difficult to substantiate because the actions are most commonly executed without a third party observer. The means of determining the facts of an allegation or the truth of denial are usually derivative rather than direct. Priests who abuse frequently instruct or threaten their victims to keep silent. Those threats include warnings that the young person will go to hell, or that he, she or parents will be harmed if the abuse is not kept secret. Other means of insuring secrecy are by connecting the abuse directly with a religious ritual. For instance the abuse takes place in church, or before or after Mass while the priest is still in his vestments, or forcing the youngster to make a sacramental confession. Records exist of a priest anointing his victims with a sign of the cross... Another horrendous example is of a priest ... to prove to her that God blessed his sɛҳuąƖ activity.

51. "Rumors, hearsay, about abusing priests are common and a valid source of information and an important means of child protection if respected and adequately investigated. Rumors form a valid alert to danger and are frequently the most powerful indication to church officials of abuse. The source of these rumors often are grounded in the fact of abuse that can be shared by the victim only with one of his or her equally powerless friends or family members. At times it is as subtle as the abused telling friends or classmates to "watch out for him." Sometimes a minor who resists a sɛҳuąƖ proposition by a priest, and tells others, "Father is a fag" starts the chain of exposure. Knowledge by rumor can be widespread and has been available for investigation within the clerical community for decades.

52. "Bishops and superiors most frequently irresponsibly and negligently dismiss rumors without reasonable investigation. Bishops, many who also fear exposure of their own sɛҳuąƖ activities have continued to exclude themselves from oversight in the directives they instituted in 2002 to deal with the problem of abuse by priests and other church employees."

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:32:30 PM »

Thanks for re-posting that, Gladius.

I, a Catholic trying to save his soul, believe that such information can't be ignored without detriment to the truth, and one's own soul.

It's hard to dismiss that in good faith.

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2010, 12:36:23 PM »

It makes sense that an erring priest or bishop would use hell-fire as a means of coercion.

After all, we only get one soul. If your soul ends up in hell for eternity, ALL IS LOST. There is no upside. It will last forever.

It's the one "pressure point" that EVERY Catholic has. What Catholic among you doesn't care if his soul is lost? Certainly not me.

Fr. Cekada and others KNOW that. Of course they do. I don't have to admit that I get scared and uncomfortable when someone says I'm going to hell. Who wants to lose their soul? That's true about everyone.

However, I'm not going to let emotion cloud out my reason. If I can, by reason, show myself that I'm not indeed hell-bound, then I can fight for truth and let the arrows of the enemy strike my shield of hope, leaving me unscathed.

Matthew

Belloc · « **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2010, 01:04:01 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: 008
It is up to us to listen or not.

It is clear no one is interested in listening to your bogus interpretation of St. Francis, etc.

Your comments have been noted. Thank you.

I think you and others that have tangled with SGG have made a good case.......

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2010, 11:30:23 AM »