Where does the Church order people to respond to rumors, gossip, calumnies,and backbiting, in order to satisfy an accuser?  From what I have read, the saints endured such trials patiently for the love of Christ.

It depends on the situation and the common good. Here is Fr. Hardon writing on humility according to St. Ignatius:

The three modes (of Humility, according to St. Ignatius) can be illustrated by the example of a man who has unjustly suffered a grave injury to his honor:

First Mode: He does not care to retrieve his good name if it cannot be done without serious sin.

Second Mode: He will not try to defend his honor if this would involve committing venial sin; but if it can be done without sin, he wants to restore his reputation.

Third Mode: He considers the loss of reputation as profit in Christ. Instead of defending himself, he will gladly suffer the injury in silence. But on one condition: as long as God’s glory is equally served, i.e., when neither a moral obligation nor benefit to others demands that he vindicate his legitimate rights. If such an obligation or benefit exists, then ipso facto there is no longer equal glory to God, and he will defend his reputation without failing in the spirit of the third mode. All the while his internal dispositions are such that if a just defense of his honor were not obligatory in itself or profitable to the neighbor, he will consider it a privilege to suffer in the company of his humiliated Master. [5]

[5]Opera Spiritualia Joannis P. Roothaan, Vol. II, Romae, 1936, p.117

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Dr Drolesky is not a priest.  That was a rumor.

I thought so.  

Was it started through malice or just misunderstanding?

No, the question came from a couple of sources. As I mentioned before, it's not a question of wrongdoing (even if some believe it is for whatever reason). Did he ever answer the question? It's not an embarrassing question and if the rumors persist, why doesn't he just answer it with a simple denial.

Ironically, I might have an answer for this question of yours, SJB, when you ask:

"Did he ever answer the question? It's not an embarrassing question and
if the rumors persist, why doesn't he just answer it with a simple denial[?]"


My answer is, perhaps he fears that he will lose readership, and this is not
an accusation against him, for he is a busy man, and perhaps he just has not
had sufficient reason to answer it, or, maybe he thinks it's entertaining, or,
maybe he thinks that these people asking him ought to know how to check
and see for themselves what the answer is, or, some other thing I haven't
thought of, but what I do know, is that I know a man whom Dr. Droleskey
wrote to some years ago, all gushing with respect and even adulation, under
the expectation that the addressee was a priest, because the man's surname
is identical to a certain priest in the same geographical vicinity.  The Dr. was
eager to continue correspondence until the man managed to mention that
he was not the priest to whom the Dr. had thought he was writing, at which
point Dr. Droleskey suddenly ceased all replies.  

Therefore, since that is what he does in that situation, maybe then he figures
it's a normal expectation to think everyone else may well do likewise.



On the other hand, I would not put it beyond the scope of possibility that
Dr. Droleskey has somehow become aware that there is a chance that he
could become ordained by someone, such as "in pectore," or, that he may
have already managed to do so, with the promise that he cannot make it
publicly known until such time as he has the permission of his bishop,
whoever that might be.  I don't intend to start another 'rumor' with this,
but it comes to mind as a product of what I know, and due to the fact that
I have personally met Dr. Droleskey, and have friends in common with him.




Furthermore, to answer Elizabeth:

Post

I can't understand what this is about, did Niel or Droleskey write it?

And, is it Father now, or just another Internet rumor causing more confusion?

I wrote the intro, as shown by the narrow margin near the top, and the
quoted portion is the wide margin below, that is, between the two images,
the first of which is Fr. Amorth, the Vatican Exorcist, with his most effective
Crucifix of St. Benedict, which has been a "personal witness" to numerous
successful exorcisms, and which might well therefore be one of the most
precious physical relics in the world today, and the second of which is B16
standing in front of a priest wearing a Roman Collar, whose face is cropped
off the top of the image, and the white square of his collar is obscured by
the top of B16's head, leaving the two little white rims of his collar alone
obviously visible, which look then like horns on B16's head.  If you look
closely you can see details of the priest's black cassock behind B16.

Post

Quote from: Neil Obstat

So is it any surprise that the respected and really last true priest from the days of Pius XII and, other than selected traditional priests, the only one in the conciliar structure who has the true power of the Order of Excorcist, Fr. Amorth, is contradicted by those out to defend the conciliar cabal?

Reading this, it looks as if his "ordination" is another rumor, and I apologise for even mentioning it.
 Where does the Church order people to respond to rumors, gossip, calumnies,and backbiting, in order to satisfy an accuser?   From what I have read, the saints endured such trials patiently for the love of Christ.

Elizabeth, I apologize for any confusion my OP may have caused.  I don't like
the way the quote boxes always make the type tiny and hard to read, so
I was avoiding the look of smaller font by not putting the quoted segment
in a quote box.  It should be easy to see that it was Dr. Droleskey who
wrote the part that follows "Do Tell," but I admit that the usual use
of the "quote" button on this platform (CI as currently provided) makes
any cropped quote of my OP look like I wrote what follows "Do Tell."

To exemplify, I made the text above in orange that looks like my words
but are really the words of Dr. Droleskey that I was quoting between two
pictures in my OP.

Furthermore, there should not be any confusion as to whom these words refer:

"So is it any surprise that the respected and really last true priest from the days of Pius XII and, other than selected traditional priests, the only one in the conciliar structure who has the true power of the Order of Excorcist, Fr. Amorth, is contradicted by those out to defend the conciliar cabal?"

..because they clearly refer to Fr. Amorth and not to anyone else, including
but not limited to the author himself, Dr. Droleskey.

Sedes take note:  While Dr. Droleskey may seem to be "on your side" in
regards to sedevacantism, he may only appear that way to you, for he does
not descend into mean-spirited and vulgar detraction against the "conciliar
cabal" or the "conciliar structure" to which he refers.  You would do well to
imitate his example and use his lexicon because he is a most effective
and educated representative of what you ought to admire in a Catholic, that
is, if you are Catholic.



Here again, is my OP, and I will make my words in blue here so you can
see what I wrote more easily.  Please note that the word "Source" at the
top of the quoted segment is a hot link to the Daily Catholic site from
which I got the material, including the images.  You can easily see that is
the case if you have a PC and point your mouse arrow at the underlined
word "Source" and look in the bottom-left corner of your screen to see
the URL (Universal Resource Locator) address of the link.  If you have a
Macintosh or perhaps other system, you may not be able to see that,
since Apple is not afraid to admit that they are phasing out this function on
their newest machines because not enough customers use the feature
and it's just another thing that takes up real estate on the hard drive in
this case, they say, unnecessarily (sorry, sspxbvm, if that "doesn't make
sense," but if you want to know what I'm saying you're welcome to ask me
and I will answer politely, I promise!):

It seems to me an entire forum could be just for the output of Dr. Droleskey,
but not seeing any other place to put this, I figured the Crisis forum would work.


I ran across this quip today.  It might be from a year ago, but I'm not sure,
because the website (dailycatholic.org) is vague about dates.  

I've added the paragraph breaks to make it more readable.......

Source







Do Tell
In his last hurrah, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, one of the only true exorcists still living, reveals a shocking truth: There are satanists in the College of 'Cardinals'. (Surprise! Surprise!!!) When asked if Ratzinger knows, he said: "Of, course."

What the reporter did not ask: Was Ratzinger one of those cardinals?

It's time to start asking the tough questions. Or, are the conciliar robber barons afraid of the devil? (How can they be? They don't believe in him!) However, they should be very, very afraid of his Adversary for they will have to atone for what they have wrought.

So is it any surprise that the respected and really last true priest from the days of Pius XII and, other than selected traditional priests, the only one in the conciliar structure who has the true power of the Order of Excorcist, Fr. Amorth, is contradicted by those out to defend the conciliar cabal?

Just as Nancy Peℓσѕι vows that this Congress is the most open and ethical in history (right!!!), so also a non-priest - 'Fr.' Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, who claims he has the same powers of exorcism as Fr. Gabriele Amorth (he doesn't!!!), is quick to have the gall to say that this current cabal of 'cardinals' (in which there really isn't a legitimate true cardinal of the Church in the bunch now) is (are you ready for this?) "Our College of Cardinals, if we compare it with past centuries is the most edifying and virtuous that history has ever known. One would have to go back to the epoch of the Roman Empire to find a body of electors so distanced from all earthly pretension as the current one is."

(Yeah, he really said that!!! What does he think Rasputin and Ghengis Khan ruled the College of Cardinals in the past?)

The conciliar clowns are desperate to cover up how much in control satan really is of the new church founded at Vatican II. Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey 3-6







This part was really good:

What does he think Rasputin and Ghengis Khan ruled
the College of Cardinals in the past?

P.S., has anyone else noticed that this photo of B16, which was made
available by Traditio.com and has since spread to however many hundreds
of websites and emails via the 'abominable Internet' has what appears to
be a signature fractured glass?  It looks like "the Fathers" of Traditio.com
put a framed picture on their scanner and copied it, but the frame has a
broken glass, perhaps being the reason that the picture was not first
removed from the frame: because removing a paper image like that from
a frame that has broken glass is 'dangerous' because you might get cut
from the glass.  Alternatively, a filter-image could have been superimposed
using software, to lay the look of fractured glass over the image, to be
a kind of trademark, if you will, so its distribution can be tracked, for it
is a bit challenging to remove all that sunburst-linework without disturbing
something else in the picture.  Furthermore, it may be noteworthy that
any picture framed behind regular glass of single strength is easily dropped
from about waist level onto a hard floor and landing on the bottom left
corner of the frame, can produce just this kind of sunburst-fracture in the
glass.  And finally, the glass that appears to be fractured also appears to
be BEVELED glass.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO

My answer is, perhaps he fears that he will lose readership, and
this is not an accusation against him, for he is a busy man, and
perhaps he just has not had sufficient reason to answer it, or,
maybe he thinks it's entertaining, or, maybe he thinks that these
people asking him ought to know how to check and see for
themselves what the answer is, or, some other thing I haven't
thought of

An answer would halt speculation when the simple truth can be made known without sin; that would be the reason for answering.

True, however, the deeper question is, what moral imperative
exists that says he is required to "halt speculation," even if it
can thus be done "without sin?"

There seems to be at least two possibilities:

1)  He has, perhaps for whatever reason, not seen this as an
issue pressing enough to address, plus, unaddressed it gives him
free advertizing, or,

2)  He is human, and therefore weak, and might be subject to a
kind of blindness whereby he has not noticed the spread of this
rumor, that is, maybe the rumor has spread much further than he
had thought it ever would.

Yes, we don't know what he has heard or knows, I agree. I believe it would be in the interest of the common good to dispel the rumor with a simple answer. It's easy to say there should be no rumor, yet there are rumors. The existence of the rumor is just a fact.

NeilO, the existence of the rumor is the fact, not the rumor itself, which could well be entirely false. Yes, the fact the rumor exists is not the reason for addressing it.

I believe this particular rumor is troubling for some. I'm saying the rumor can be extinguished with a simple answer.