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.