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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 17

Author Topic: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX  (Read 22479 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46291
  • Reputation: +27248/-5037
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2023, 08:39:36 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 04, 2023, 08:36:21 AM
    The lawyer was hoping for some sort of negotiation/settlement.  He refused.  So, was the ensuing lawsuits great?  No.  But let's stop pushing the idea that this was ALL the (Evil) Nine's fault.

    Well, the lawsuits were their fault.  They had been accuмulating properties under the auspices of the SSPX while (often) keeping the ownership in their names.  That would akin to if I were a CMRI priest, presenting myself as a CMRI priest, but then buying a church building that had my name on the title.  That's not something they should have done in the first place.  They should have just walked away and started new chapels.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #76 on: December 04, 2023, 08:41:16 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Ironically, while they argued that priests should have freedom where it came to certain matters not decided by the Church, and I agree with that, they themselves ended up imposing their theological opinions on the faithful by using the Sacraments as weapons.  So they were not true to their core principles.
    Very, very true.

    Quote
    But let's stop pushing the idea that this was ALL the (Evil) Nine's fault.
    If they started the case (i.e. prosecuting side) and the sspx was the defending side, then yes...the Nine started the fight.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #77 on: December 04, 2023, 08:51:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2023, 08:41:16 AM
    If they started the case (i.e. prosecuting side) and the sspx was the defending side, then yes...the Nine started the fight.
    Nope.  The Archbishop filed the lawsuit. 
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #78 on: December 04, 2023, 08:52:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 04, 2023, 08:39:36 AM
    Well, the lawsuits were their fault.  They had been accuмulating properties under the auspices of the SSPX while (often) keeping the ownership in their names.  That would akin to if I were a CMRI priest, presenting myself as a CMRI priest, but then buying a church building that had my name on the title.  That's not something they should have done in the first place.  They should have just walked away and started new chapels.
    Proof?  It's my understanding that that was libel against them at the time.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46291
    • Reputation: +27248/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #79 on: December 04, 2023, 08:54:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 04, 2023, 08:52:16 AM
    Proof?  It's my understanding that that was libel against them at the time.

    Father Cekada admitted as much in the very meeting where they were expelled, saying to the Archbishop, "That's fine, but we own the properties."  There was no libel there.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46291
    • Reputation: +27248/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #80 on: December 04, 2023, 08:55:43 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 04, 2023, 08:51:23 AM
    Nope.  The Archbishop filed the lawsuit.

    Because The Nine had accuмulated many SSPX properties in their name.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #81 on: December 04, 2023, 09:01:54 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 04, 2023, 08:54:56 AM
    Father Cekada admitted as much in the very meeting where they were expelled, saying to the Archbishop, "That's fine, but we own the properties."  There was no libel there.
    Never saw that quote.  Do you have a source/link?

    OTOH, their lawyer informed them that the properties were owned by "not-for-profit corporations", not the priests.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #82 on: December 04, 2023, 09:02:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 04, 2023, 08:55:43 AM
    Because The Nine had accuмulated many SSPX properties in their name.
    Still looking for a source that proves this is true.  
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46291
    • Reputation: +27248/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #83 on: December 04, 2023, 09:14:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • From the legal case ...
    https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/806/806.F2d.44.85-7931.1490.html

    Quote
    We have to ask ourselves why these two priests involved in this particular resolution would want to have full power of attorney over every U.S. corporation of the Fraternity? It is reported and even admitted by the priests themselves that they have conveniently placed the property belonging to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in their own names.

    Where their charge of libel came from was due to the follow-on statement made by SSPX that they had thereby "sacked the Church", but there was never any question that the priests placed the properties in their own name.  Father Cekada admitted it immediately after they were expelled:  "Go ahead, but we own the properties"
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #84 on: December 04, 2023, 10:03:32 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 04, 2023, 09:14:30 AM
    From the legal case ...
    https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/806/806.F2d.44.85-7931.1490.html

    We have to ask ourselves why these two priests involved in this particular resolution would want to have full power of attorney over every U.S. corporation of the Fraternity? It is reported and even admitted by the priests themselves that they have conveniently placed the property belonging to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in their own names.

    Where their charge of libel came from was due to the follow-on statement made by SSPX that they had thereby "sacked the Church", but there was never any question that the priests placed the properties in their own name.  Father Cekada admitted it immediately after they were expelled:  "Go ahead, but we own the properties"
    Except the quote you gave was the false assertion made by the defendants, not an admission by the plaintiffs (the 4 of the 9).  Here is more of what the legal case had to say:

    On appeal, plaintiffs ask this court, in considering whether they have stated a claim for actionable libel, to focus particularly on language contained in Bolduc's May 14, 1983 letter. They make two arguments in support of the claim that their complaint adequately states a cause of action for libel. First, they contend that statements contained in the letter, charging that plaintiffs fraudulently placed church property "in their own names" and thus "sacked" the church, are libelous per se in that they impugn plaintiffs' integrity and fitness as priests. Second, plaintiffs contend that these statements were assertions of fact and accordingly are not protected as expressions of opinion, as the District Court held.
    10
    After reviewing Bolduc's May 14 letter, we conclude that the following statement (set in italics and quoted in context) is distinguishable from others sued upon in that it is both susceptible of a defamatory meaning and understandable as an assertion of fact rather than opinion, and therefore constitutes actionable libel:
    11
    We have to ask ourselves why these two priests involved in this particular resolution would want to have full power of attorney over every U.S. corporation of the Fraternity? It is reported and even admitted by the priests themselves that they have conveniently placed the property belonging to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society in their own names. It would appear at this time that all properties in the North-East District are in jeopardy. One must conclude that not having been satisfied with having sacked the North-East, they wished to extend their greedy possessiveness to the South-West District as well.

    So, the accusations are still not true. These properties were never "in their names". 

    But thanks for the link to the case.  How did you find it?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46291
    • Reputation: +27248/-5037
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #85 on: December 04, 2023, 10:12:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on December 04, 2023, 10:03:32 AM
    So, the accusations are still not true. But thanks for the link to the case.  How did you find it?

    Of course they're true.  Father Cekada admitted it.  Why else did Lefebvre have to take them to court?  If the properties were in the name of the SSPX, The Nine would not have gotten any of them.  If you keep reading, it says that the libel entails accusing them of having "sacked the Church", as one of their chief contentions was that SSPX does not equal the Church.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #86 on: December 04, 2023, 10:52:35 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on December 04, 2023, 10:12:00 AM
    Of course they're true.  Father Cekada admitted it.  Why else did Lefebvre have to take them to court?  If the properties were in the name of the SSPX, The Nine would not have gotten any of them.  If you keep reading, it says that the libel entails accusing them of having "sacked the Church", as one of their chief contentions was that SSPX does not equal the Church.
    Yeah, you keep asserting he admitted they owned the properties with no actual source for your quote....despite the fact that Fr Cekada explains in his own writing I posted on page 1 that the properties were owned by not-for-profit corporations.

    But your quote "Go ahead, but we own the properties" does seem awfully similar to the one quoted in the case which the court considered libelous.

    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11975
    • Reputation: +7525/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #87 on: December 04, 2023, 11:25:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    the properties were owned by not-for-profit corporations.
    All corporations have "board of directors" and people who are in control.  The nine would have put their names on the board.  Whoever is on the Board, controls the properties.  Owns = controls.  
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #88 on: December 04, 2023, 11:37:22 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

    • In any event, in God’s providence, it was a great thing that the properties are not now in the hands of the neo SSPX. 
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11323
    • Reputation: +6292/-1087
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Evils of the Nine against the good SSPX
    « Reply #89 on: December 04, 2023, 11:39:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 04, 2023, 11:25:56 AM
    All corporations have "board of directors" and people who are in control.  The nine would have put their names on the board.  Whoever is on the Board, controls the properties.  Owns = controls. 
    Prove that they did. 
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 17
    « previous next »