Quote from: SJB

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Jitpring

Is the original post an example of detraction?

Yes.  I was going to post that, but you beat me to it.

Is the reference to the public record detraction?

Even reporting the public record is detraction if there is no need to report it to those who do not know.  Report on their faulty theology and their penchant for "excommunicating" everyone on earth all you want.  This is relevant.  But I am absolutely certain that some saints may not have been perfect drivers and had poor personal hygene habits.  On that last issue, just consider the Desert Fathers.

Yes.  I think this entire topic is simply a matter of detraction.

I'm not talking about the OP's comments, just the public docuмent. Why should it be hidden? Is it a sin to read it?

I would say that this is an act of detraction, considering it isn't something many people know about.

In any case, anyone who were to bring this up to the Dimonds I'm sure would be condemned by them.  :rolleyes:

Should everybody know about a lawsuit against a “group” that solicits money from the public? Why is this considered detraction, as in an unjust disclosure?

Yeah, never mind. I guess I had forgotten about it and how public it was made. No detraction was committed.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I would say that this is an act of detraction, considering it isn't something many people know about.

In any case, anyone who were to bring this up to the Dimonds I'm sure would be condemned by them.  :rolleyes:

Should everybody know about a lawsuit against a “group” that solicits money from the public? Why is this considered detraction, as in an unjust disclosure?

I stand corrected.  This information is completely relevant for all potential donors who inspect the bathrooms and driving records of heads of all organizations to which they donate their wealth.

If you withhold your donations from your local SSPX (or other) chapel because you found dirty bathrooms and the priest is not a good driver, then this is clearly the kind of information you should seek.  If, on the other hand, you decide to stop donating to your local chapel because the priest decided to invite the local Methodist minister in to give a Sunday sermon and blesses "gαy weddings", well that's a theological reason, thus the Dimonds' theology is what is relevant.

I have not downloaded or read the docuмents from the initial post.  The only possible reason for doing so is to satisfy idle and prurient curiosity.

Well, I actually read the public docuмent and paid no attention to the OP's own words. The very fact there is a lawsuit is reason for all potential donors to know what is in the public record. If that information discloses "dirty bathrooms" it makes little difference.

Yes.  I'm reading and understanding what everyone is saying.  The only thing I am not clear on is the term, "OP".  The person who made the initial post indicated that the docuмent detailed, among other things, a poor driving record and dirty bathrooms.  This alone should have raised flags.

The Dimonds' were investigated for fraud by New York State civil officials because they, apparently, convinced a rich investment banker (if I remember rightly) to join their "monastery".  One condition of joining was that he give all that he had to the "monastery".  From this information, I concluded that this is how the Dimonds' funded the production and distribution (often for free) of some of their materials during the last few years.

The civil authorities can't, obviously, determine that they are not a religious institution.  The L. Ron Hubbard case with the Church of Scientology has seen to that.  U.S. civil courts simply cannot declare any self-professed religion not to be a religion and cannot intervene in a "religious community" if that community obeys the general civil laws.  (The only reason the government was able to justify intervention of the "Branch Dividians" in Waco, TX was to allege violations of weapons laws.)

I never heard about any outcome to this investigation though it appears that the Dimonds' may have been cleared as this is apparently a civil case and the claimant is trying to recoup his ill-advised donation of all his worldly goods to the monastery.  Obviously, he cannot require the court to determine whether or not the Dimonds' doctrines are Catholic, so he must use other means to discredit them before a judge and jury.

Even from what all have written, and especially from some of the comments, this entire topic has been, largely, an exercise in detraction (at best) and calumny (at worst).  

TKGS, I was just speaking of what is in the public record. Are you saying we should hide what is in the public record?

Exactly, and Mr. Hoyle is not. M. Dimond's lawyer puts a spin on the opening part of the docuмent (naturally).

It appears that the Dimond brothers have a new attorney in this case.  I get the impression that Mr. Hoyle's attorney has put them on the "defensive" (no pun intended).
 
I recall that Mr. Hoyle's attorney, who I have spoken with a few times, has repeatedly requested docuмentation from the
Dimond's "in good faith" and has received nothing. (Do any Cathinfo members have an update?)

It now appears that the court may require the Dimond's to actually produce some docuмentation about their financial dealings and their "legitimacy" (or lack of therein) as a Benedictine monastery.

Mr. Hoyle, a very bright person and ex-Feeneyite, is openly providing his financials. I applaud him for warning NY residents against a possible killer on the roads and most importantly, online.

Methinks Lewis is the Hobgoblin.

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/jul09tcw.htm

N.Y. Man (Fred Dimond) Named In Million Dollar Federal Racketeering Case

3. Large Donor Eric E. Hoyle Finally Realized Fred ("Michael") Dimond Was A Heretic/Counterfeit Monk

TCW's Comment: Mr. Eric E. Hoyle, (a soul who was duped hook-line-and-sinker by Mr. Fred ("Michael") Dimond's deceptive and wicked propaganda) finally realized that the New York state resident Dimond was a fraud- by Dimond's "ordering" the attendence of his subjects/donors (like Holye) to Novus Ordo sect "masses" una cuм the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Antipope Ben 16. Hoyle then promptly left. Two others at this Feeneyite Den of Depravity "MHFM" in Fillmore, NY, also left the same day as Hoyle.

Hoyle has taken court action against the self-appointed "head" of "MHFM" (Fred Dimond) to recover damages and restitution citing (under US law) constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, monies had and received, violation of the federal civil RICO statute (Racketeering) deceptive trade practice and false advertising.

See: US Court Docuмent on the Case

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/hoyle-court-case-most-holy-family-monastery-michael-dimond.pdf

Go away lewis.

TKGS, I'm mostly concerned with the attitude that almost anything and everything can be claimed "off limits" by calling it detraction. Fr. Bazzkada and many others have suggested this and it really makes any judgment impossible because it assumes either the judgment is rash or the source is just a sinful detraction and should be ignored.