Matthew,

Please be kind enough to forward this response to Eamon.  It would be ridiculous to send smoke signals to each other from two forums.  You may post it publicly on CathInfo if you like; if you do, I just ask in fairness you post it in its entirety and then let the comments be made on that.

God bless,

-Q


Eamon,

You wrote on CathInfo

"Quis @ FE:

Did YOU know Fr C was writing about me in his recent letter, now posted at FE? OF COURSE. So did everyone else who has followed these matters. Spare me the infantile, transparent justification for your actions.

If you have any stones, honesty and consistency, why not open up a thread for Fr C and I, wherein NO ONE ELSE can post?

Eamon"

Of course I knew he was writing about you.  If you read what I wrote, I basically said people following it would know, but others not following it would not know.  I stated that I followed this from the beginning, therefore the logical conclusion, which you came to, is that I would know it was about you.

The reason I don't let you and Fr. C have a thread on FE is for the same reasons I don't want discussion of it on FE.  Quite simply, I disagree with your approach to this situation.  The charges you have made, the insinuations you have made, and the (hopefully) erroneous conclusions that some people have come to are of such a serious matter that, quite frankly, I believe you and others have a moral and civic duty to go to the authorities, civil and ecclesiastical, with evidence if these things are true.  And if they aren't true, or if they are severely exaggerated, I don't want to be a party to that.

However, let us assume everything you have posted about SGG is true, and I do not know if they are - I am saying that for the purpose of analysis, let us assume that these things, God forbid, are true.  In that case, I would ask you to analyze your actions as objectively as possible, but primarily your goal for posting those things.

Is it:

1) To warn people of a danger?  What percentage of readers of your posts do you think are in actual danger of joining SGG and being subject to the alleged dangers there?  And given the percentage you come up with, is it a greater good than the amount of possible evil from scandal and detraction or even inadvertent calumny (i.e., inciting others to calumny)?  I think the percentage of people who would benefit are small compared to the scandal of exposing a priest and bishop.  Certainly, wrong-doing priests and bishops should always be stopped, but by a lawful method and made only as public as necessary.

2) To collect more evidence?  Again, what percentage of readers would even have more evidence?  SGG is a small parish and this could be handled privately in e-mail, via phone, etc., as I'm sure you've done already.

3) To get people doing wrong to stop and convert their hearts?  According to your posts, you have tried that as far back as last year.  So, you cannot reasonably expect this to work, can you?

I hope your reasoning is not out of anger.  I'm not saying spite, it could be a just anger.  However, a just anger is not an excuse for any and all actions.  A just anger motivates us to do something so that justice is obtained, but we have to make sure that something is within certain bounds.

Eamon, I believe you have a good heart, and I know you are intelligent.  I ask that you place yourself in an objective mindset and re-examine your methodology.  I'm not telling you to shut up, or hide the truth.  I'm saying your methodology, in my opinion, is broken under Catholic teaching, and that methodology will also undermine your credibility should there be recourse to authorities.

The one method that would accomplish warning, correction, justice, vindication, etc. and have a credible ring to it is not by an internet pissing match but recourse to objective authorities.  This would also ensure fairness and justice to those charged and give them ample opportunity to defend themselves and their names.  This, in my opinion, is the rightful approach for all parties concerned.

I will leave you with this section from the CE on detraction.  Please read it and think about it especially with regard to what bounds we are supposed to operate under.  If, after doing so, you believe you are doing the right thing, then, you know, do what you need to do.  But please think about it - you will notice it is related to the questions I posed to you above.  I think that the best thing to do, if you and others have charges and evidence, is to seek legal and ecclesiastical recourse, not the current course of action you have been taking.

Also know that I keep you, and, yes,  Fr. C. too, and all those affected by this at SGG and elsewhere in my prayers.  This is a very upsetting situation to say the least and it is clear that people are suffering greatly over this, especially the members (and ex-members) of SGG who find themselves in a dilemma as to what to believe and what to do.  I pray the truth outs itself in a manner that justice is served, wrongs are righted, and people's faith ultimately strengthened.  I mean that sincerely.

I am sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on this matter, Eamon.  The best I can do is give you my honest reasons above.  There is nothing underhanded or infantile or whatever about them that I can see.  They are what they are: I disagree with your methodology for the reasons stated, and I will not have a hand in furthering that methodology.

With that, I hope you understand my position more clearly now.  I don't have much more to say about it so, as you say, Godspeed.


-Quis

CE entry on detraction:

There are times, nevertheless, when one may lawfully make known the offense of another even though as a consequence the trust hitherto reposed in him be rudely shaken or shattered. If a person's misdoing is public in the sense that sentence has been passed by the competent legal tribunal or that it is already notorious, for instance, in a city, then in the first case it may licitly be referred to in any place; in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten. When, however, knowledge of the happening is possessed only by the members of a particular community or society, such as a college or monastery and the like, it would not be lawful to publish the fact to others than those belonging to such a body. Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or s esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

  :barf:

OK, Quis.  Let us analyse  OUR goal for posting these things.

(You hypocrite, defending hypocrisy Quis)

The Cincinnati sede vacante clergy  are supervised by no authority except each other.  They have run amok. We have all done the proper Catholic procedures in reaction to the corruption of children in these so-called academies.  

Call the Cops :cop:

That's why Fr. Jenkins called my husband at the office to inform him that any future conversations would need to be videotaped, period.  Hey, he hired his nephew the lawyer to run the little school.  They know all about Ohio laws here, Quis.  Why would anybody need to do that?  

Of course, when one of his friend's daughters was threatened by one of her students in a different school, Fr. Jenkins told the daughter to call the police.  

It is not against the civil law to be a total hypocrite, Quis.  But these priests earn their money doing so.  Ohio is a "buyer beware" state.  If you get ripped off by someone claiming to be something he is not, it's your own tough luck.  

Quis, why don't you question the motives of clergy who take it upon themselves to excommunicate Catholics for going to their neighboring sede vacante chapel?  

How does that work, exactly?  The two rival sede chapels excommunicating the family members of their respective parishoners?

They've been doing weird stuff for years and kicking out people who question the Catholicity of their self-serving rubbish.  

What "recourse to objective authorities" do you have in mind, Quis?
Who are they?  We can't find any, because they do not exist.

Let's keep this civil.

We're not TRYING to live out the stereotypes some people have of CathInfo, are we?

First, I want to point out that Quis is a good example of someone who completely disagrees with me, but doesn't drive me nuts or make me want to tear my hair out. He is your average "adversary" in the sense of someone on the other side of an argument.

He disagrees with me, and with Eamon. That's his prerogative. If he were on this board, I wouldn't ban him for posting this (why do you think I'm posting it?)

He does so in a calm, rational manner. I'll give him great amounts of credit for that. He's telling us his honest opinion. Good for him.

Also note that Quis is NOT serpentine, where every sentence is calculated -- where he flatters you while stabbing you in the back -- you know that nasty taste you get when reading CERTAIN POSTERS in the Ode thread. I don't know how many people wrote those posts, but there's a certain "good at pushing your buttons" going on when you read posts by certain people in the Ode thread.

My question is, why do VIRTUALLY ALL the SGG defenders have that serpentine quality -- where they twist everything, and... it's hard to explain it in words. You know it when you read it.

Matthew

To warn people of a danger?  What percentage of readers of your posts do you think are in actual danger of joining SGG and being subject to the alleged dangers there?

One of the ten commandment of chivalry is to protect the the weak, whether they be physically weak, intellectually weak, etc, so that they are not mislead or taken advantage of. Children definitely would be considered in this category. Another commandment is to put down injustice and evil so that it does not prevail. If there is true danger to souls at SGG, then exposing it, even if it is "private" is not wrong. Keep in mind the definition of public sin, includes those acts that could be known(through the correct use of reason if needed), but are not necessarily known to all at the time.

 :barf:

OK, Quis.  Let us analyse  OUR goal for posting these things.

(You hypocrite, defending hypocrisy Quis)

The Cincinnati sede vacante clergy  are supervised by no authority except each other.  They have run amok. We have all done the proper Catholic procedures in reaction to the corruption of children in these so-called academies.  

Yes, that is one of the problems with sedevacantism.  It seems to me inconceivable that Christ would leave His Church without Petrine authority for practical reasons if not spiritual.  But, that is the case in sedevacantism - there is no final authority.

As I noted above, and you agree with, they do have authority over each other.  The Orthodox serve as a model, and with that model you get the good and the bad - some bishops will "excommunicate" each other.  Others will join in synod or council.  

The sedevacantists made their bed by rejecting the authority of the post-conciliar Popes (or "Popes" depending on one's outlook), so now they must lie in it.  In other words, this mess is a logical conclusion of the application of the sedevacantist theological posit to the post-Conciliar hierarchy.  In my mind, it is also a sign that the sedevacantists are wrong - by their fruit you shall know them, and sedevacantism has only borne fruit of suspicion, infighting, schism, etc.  Is this type of stuff from Christ?

That aside, the point is there is recourse, for sedes at least,  to authority in the successor of the Apostles that are validly consecrated.  Said sede bishops can decide to be like Peter and shirk their responsibility, or they can "grow stones" and be like Peter after the cock crowed, live up to their duties, and demand answers for the good of the sede faithful.

Call the Cops :cop:

That's why Fr. Jenkins called my husband at the office to inform him that any future conversations would need to be videotaped, period.  Hey, he hired his nephew the lawyer to run the little school.  They know all about Ohio laws here, Quis.  Why would anybody need to do that?  

Of course, when one of his friend's daughters was threatened by one of her students in a different school, Fr. Jenkins told the daughter to call the police.  

There have been charges, allegations, and insinuations for things from child abuse to fraud to tax evasion.  Those are criminal acts.

It is not against the civil law to be a total hypocrite, Quis.  But these priests earn their money doing so.  Ohio is a "buyer beware" state.  If you get ripped off by someone claiming to be something he is not, it's your own tough luck.  

Quis, why don't you question the motives of clergy who take it upon themselves to excommunicate Catholics for going to their neighboring sede vacante chapel?  

My first question would be the motive of anyone who takes it upon themselves to dethrone a Pope.  When one thinks they have the authority to do that, excommunicating the laity is child's play.

How does that work, exactly?  The two rival sede chapels excommunicating the family members of their respective parishoners?

They've been doing weird stuff for years and kicking out people who question the Catholicity of their self-serving rubbish.

Yes, just like the Protestants and Orthodox and Old Catholics.  History repeats itself.  I can't see how anyone is surprised at the sede schisms, etc. Catholicism is based on authority coming from Christ through the Pope and his peers.  Sedevacantism cuts off the temporal head of the Church, and chaos ensues.

Even if I were to assume sedevacantism were correct, which I absolutely do not, it seems to me the outcome of sedevacantism in the near term is exactly this: headless chaos.    

What "recourse to objective authorities" do you have in mind, Quis?
Who are they?  We can't find any, because they do not exist.

Answered above: the proper judge of a bishop is other bishops, but especially the Bishop of Rome.  If they hold there is no Bishop of Rome, they may be judged by their fellow bishops.

Quote from: Definition of Detraction

Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or s esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. The right which the latter has to an assumed good name is extinguished in the presence of the benefit which may be conferred in this way.

Good of souls at SGG?
The faith of many adults and children, and their immortal souls?

And don't you suppose people send in money from all around the country (the world?) to support the "beautiful Catholic school" they read about at sggschool.org? Perhaps it would be good -- in justice -- for those benefactors to know the school is not what they claim.

How would Quis apply the quote on Detraction to pedophilia by a priest in, say, Boston, MA.  The sins are usually private. The victims usually have recourse to the bishop or other Church authorities -- who do nothing. (They often move the priest somewhere else!) Sometimes a story has to hit the news before the Church does anything about it. And once it hits the news, in this day and age, it always becomes national and/or world news if it's at all "interesting" in the eyes of the media.

Matthew

The application is straightforward.  Even though the sin is not public, it may be made public, but only as far as necessary for a greater good.  In the case of SGG, it seems any such things should be limited to the parish members.  If the parish folds, there will be nothing for anyone to contribute to anyhow.

For a predatory pedophile priest, I would turn him over to the police along with evidence.  Much of the rules about going only to the clergy came from a time when the Church had its rightful temporal power.  The Church no longer has that, so sometimes we have recourse to civil authorities in grave matters.

Quote from: Quis

To warn people of a danger?  What percentage of readers of your posts do you think are in actual danger of joining SGG and being subject to the alleged dangers there?

One of the ten commandment of chivalry is to protect the the weak, whether they be physically weak, intellectually weak, etc, so that they are not mislead or taken advantage of. Children definitely would be considered in this category. Another commandment is to put down injustice and evil so that it does not prevail. If there is true danger to souls at SGG, then exposing it, even if it is "private" is not wrong. Keep in mind the definition of public sin, includes those acts that could be known(through the correct use of reason if needed), but are not necessarily known to all at the time.

Sure, agreed.  But if there is true danger to souls at SGG, it is rightfully exposed to them and not the world at large.

What I said about this thing months ago --

If there were a

sggforum.com
or
sggschoolforum.com

I would certainly advise Eamon to try there first.

However, given the circuмstances, I'm sure A) Fr. Cekada would have firm control ("iron grip") of such a forum, and therefore B) any posts less than germane to Fr. Cekada would be deleted immediately.

But that's all hypothetical, since an "Ohio Catholics" forum doesn't exist. The closest thing to a meeting place for all ex-members of SGG is ... Cathinfo. Yes, a few non-affected-by-the-situation Catholics are hearing about it -- but that's collateral damage in the scheme of things.

Fr. Cekada is talking about it far and wide -- he apparently wants the word to get out?

I still don't understand why he didn't post the PDF here. We posted it here and discussed it anyhow.

But CathInfo is where "they already know about it" whereas Fisheaters is a much wider, more popular board. Why not just publish it on CNN? Very strange.

Matthew