[Matthew]

After some careful thought, I decided that no expose' thread is going to be allowed here, especially targeted at a priest/bishop, if it's posted by someone who won't even give his name. Even moreso if the person is suspicious, new, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, or all of the above!

Remember the Bishop Dolan and Fr. Cekada deal? I allowed that partly because Eamon at least gave us his name -- sure, the average member doesn't know who he is, how trustworthy he is (assuming no experience with him) -- but at least the man gave us his name, right?

This veritasaxios guy didn't even do that!  He seemed to be taking himself down along with Bishop Petko, except HE DIDN'T GIVE US HIS NAME so the accusation cost him approximately zero. That's not fair.

Just the RISK of slander makes that a no-go. If any truth-telling/exposing is to be posted here, there is always a risk it's false which would make it slander. That's the risk we all have to take I guess. But there MUST BE A COST for the person making the accusation, otherwise slander is way too "damn" easy. (And I include the word "damn" on purpose -- Slander is not a minor sin, especially when clerics are involved!)

Are you familiar with the concept of moral hazard?

We all know what a mess this country is in because of excessive lawsuits -- imagine if every lawsuit COST the accuser some money upfront!  There would be far less unjust/frivolous lawsuits. But when inmates get free access to lawyers, when lawyers work for "a percentage of what we get", etc. then you have all sorts of unjust legal action. After all, what does the accuser have to lose? That coffee was hot, it spilled on my lap, this lawyer is bright and will work for a % of the "take", McDonald's has deep pockets -- let's go for it!

It's like a gang of thieves -- they work together, and they split up any loot they get.

Hopefully you understand. If you have any questions, you can post them here.

[Matthew]

And for those of you wondering "where IS that Ode to Reality thread anyhow" I need to point out --

I'm not going to allow random innuendo and whispering on here. It's too easy to ruin good names that way. Anonymous users, un-proveable allegations, starting rumors, whispering, etc -- that's not going to go here.

I told Eamon, and I told anyone else -- CathInfo is going to be a last bastion of the truth.  If this were the book 1984, Winston would be welcome here to bash Big Brother, until this site got taken down by the same. CathInfo will never stand by while one truth-teller is outgunned, destroyed, marginalized, etc. because he will always be welcome to post his side of the story here.

That having been said -- I ask for EVIDENCE and some kind of careful layout of information -- "just the facts, ma'am". You can go ahead and put in some conjecture and help people connect dots, too -- but PLEASE give us names, facts, SOMETHING that can be verified, or please hold off on your expose' until it is more developed/mature.

[Roman Catholic]

Did you also ban the guy who started that Petko thread, so he can't make any other posts here until/unless he demonstrates to you he is of good will?

[Matthew]

veritasaxios has been banned, yes.

His story/situation is just too suspicious for me. His failure to give his name is no small part of my distrust.

But he's also new, and admits to being gαy, and also didn't even suggest that he was celibate!

Sorry, but when you admit to being part of a culture that necessarily involves impurity, yes it IS necessary to explicitly state your chastity.

I don't have to explicitly state my marital fidelity, etc. -- because we're all required to think the best of others. Charity demands it. But the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ culture is necessarily impure and necessarily promiscuous. The media talks about "gαy marriage" and how gαys just have love for a different gender but that's all crap. Real gαys will tell you that's all hogwash -- they don't WANT to be married OR monogamous. It's not part of the gαy culture.

If I told you I was a thief 10 years ago, and I was going to be at your house a lot, wouldn't you be waiting for the part where I tell how I stopped stealing? If I left that out, wouldn't you feel uncomfortable letting me house-sit for you?

[Roman Catholic]

veritasaxios has been banned, yes.

His story/situation is just too suspicious for me. His failure to give his name is no small part of my distrust.

But he's also new, and admits to being gαy, and also didn't even suggest that he was celibate!

Sorry, but when you admit to being part of a culture that necessarily involves impurity, yes it IS necessary to explicitly state your chastity.

I don't have to explicitly state my marital fidelity, etc. -- because we're all required to think the best of others. Charity demands it. But the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ culture is necessarily impure and necessarily promiscuous. The media talks about "gαy marriage" and how gαys just have love for a different gender but that's all crap. Real gαys will tell you that's all hogwash -- they don't WANT to be married OR monogamous. It's not part of the gαy culture.

If I told you I was a thief 10 years ago, and I was going to be at your house a lot, wouldn't you be waiting for the part where I tell how I stopped stealing? If I left that out, wouldn't you feel uncomfortable letting me house-sit for you?

Thanks. The guy was acting suspisciously, and he evaded everyone who sought clarification from him whether he had a Catholic moral stance on the issue.

[ServusSpiritusSancti]

Thanks Matthew, for banning veritasaxios and for deleting that thread.

[Matthew]

But don't get me wrong -- if we go too far the other way, "You can only bring it up if you have pictures", then you have the situation in the Novus Ordo where pedophile/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests get relocated again and again, all around the country,  starting over afresh each time to victimize a new group of young boys.

With certain sins, physical evidence is not likely to be available.

If a person gives his name, and admits it came from others, it should be taken as secondhand evidence and weighed accordingly.

But remember, we don't have a Vatican or ecclesiastical courts to look out for us. That is, to defend us against truly vicious priests (pedophiles, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs). We are a loosely organized, scattered remnant -- we have to look out for ourselves and our children in 2012 using things like CathInfo and Google -- it's just the way things are.

[Sigismund]

Matthew,

Just out of curiosity (as I have not intention of writing an expose of anything), would you find it acceptable if someone were to offer what at least appeared to be solid evidence of some wrongdoing, and was unwilling to post his or her name publicly for fear of some reprisal, but was willing to give it to you privately so that you could investigate it to the extent you thought to be needed?

[Roman Catholic]

But don't get me wrong -- if we go too far the other way, "You can only bring it up if you have pictures", then you have the situation in the Novus Ordo where pedophile/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests get relocated again and again, all around the country,  starting over afresh each time to victimize a new group of young boys.

With certain sins, physical evidence is not likely to be available.

If a person gives his name, and admits it came from others, it should be taken as secondhand evidence and weighed accordingly.

But remember, we don't have a Vatican or ecclesiastical courts to look out for us. That is, to defend us against truly vicious priests (pedophiles, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs). We are a loosely organized, scattered remnant -- we have to look out for ourselves and our children in 2012 using things like CathInfo and Google -- it's just the way things are.

Matthew,

So for example, the published excerpts from the interview that Droleskey, whose identity is known, had with the seminarians, whose identities are known to Droleskey, Fr Ramolla, Fr Thielen, Fr Hall, and others, would be acceptable?

[MyrnaM]

Matthew,

Just out of curiosity (as I have not intention of writing an expose of anything), would you find it acceptable if someone were to offer what at least appeared to be solid evidence of some wrongdoing, and was unwilling to post his or her name publicly for fear of some reprisal, but was willing to give it to you privately so that you could investigate it to the extent you thought to be needed?

Yet you fear no reprisal from God?   Strange!

[Sigismund]

Myrna,

This was not a question for me personally.  I have not intention of posting any such thing.  It seems to me that someone might have real evidence of wrongdoing and be afraid to post their name out of fear.  Upon reflection, however, if that is the case the person shouldn't really be posting it on an internet forum.  They should be talking to a bishop or the police.

[Elizabeth]

People who do not use their real name on forums are subject to more temptations than those who use their names.  There is simply no accountability.  

It is far easier to snipe and backbite anonymously.  It is easy to use the PMs to manipulate others, after studying their level of computer savvy and emotional vulnerability.  

 Obviously there is a huge amount of lying and disinfo by people using anonymous, multiple accounts.

If one is going to be a whistleblower, he must be prepared for inevitably serious consequences.  

Any common little sissy can create sites such as PistrinaLiturgica of VipersofVaudeville Watch or Mater dei Watch to spew slander.  And they do, using their special home brew of mental reservation and sleaze.  They do so knowing that good holy Catholics will not dare to retaliate in kind.  All they want is plausible deniability, knowing good Catholics will be obliged to think the very best of them because there is no proof.  

A win-win situation for anonymous detractors, calumniators, gossips and those taken in by these devious Internet shills.

[SJB]

Re obsession w/externals of worship:

Quoting Leon J. Podles, reviewing Michael S. Rose's Goodbye, Good Men :  "I was briefly in a seminary in the 1960s. I left because my roommate was a predatory ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. He was allowed to continue despite having committed what I now realize was a felony. He eventually died of AIDS, as did others I knew in the seminary. Rose names St. Mary’s in Baltimore as a seminary that tolerates openly gαy behavior .  .  .

Rose has missed an important variant of the problem: the orthodox ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. My roommate was always very orthodox, favored Latin, and liked traditional devotions; he unfortunately was a criminal. The high-church ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ that plagues Anglicanism is also present in the Catholic Church. Episcopalians I know recognize the type. Some high-church clerics construct an ultra-rigid world and display a fanatical devotion to the minutiae of rubrics. They seem to feel that without a totally controlled environment their world would collapse—probably into a chaos of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ desire and activity."

Then reviewing Mark D. Jordan's The Silence of Sodom, Podles writes,  "Jordan explains the traditionalist ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ as the product of a devil’s bargain. Since the Catholic priest enacts a campy, feminine role, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who are forbidden sɛҳuąƖ relations can live out a queer identity in full public view and approval. He can wear a dress, dress up statues, fuss endlessly over church decoration and rituals, and still be regarded as an exemplary Catholic. Jordan’s analysis may contain a grain of truth, if the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and pedophiliac scandals are indeed really, and not just apparently, confined to the English-speaking world. These countries have had a predominantly Protestant culture. Rituals and ways of life that feel deep-rooted and natural in Latin, Catholic countries feel artificial and campy when transported to a Protestant environment. Precisely this artificiality and campiness attracts a certain type of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

One Catholic charismatic leader whom I knew was also traditionalist in his devotions. He attended the Latin Mass, had an apartment full of statues, and a banner of the Immaculate Conception in his bedroom. He also hosted a party on Spy Wednesday after Tenebrae (which I always thought a bit odd). I later learned that he spent his summers in the gαy beach scene and eventually died of AIDS. His combination of contradictory traits may have been the result of the common sinfulness and self-deception we all share, but it may also have been a result of an attraction to the campiness of Catholic trappings in a Protestant culture. Opera attracts similar ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ followers in the United States, but not in Italy, for many of the same reasons."

For what it's worth.

[SJB]

Re obsession w/externals of worship:

Quoting Leon J. Podles, reviewing Michael S. Rose's Goodbye, Good Men :  "I was briefly in a seminary in the 1960s. I left because my roommate was a predatory ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. He was allowed to continue despite having committed what I now realize was a felony. He eventually died of AIDS, as did others I knew in the seminary. Rose names St. Mary’s in Baltimore as a seminary that tolerates openly gαy behavior .  .  .

Rose has missed an important variant of the problem: the orthodox ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. My roommate was always very orthodox, favored Latin, and liked traditional devotions; he unfortunately was a criminal. The high-church ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ that plagues Anglicanism is also present in the Catholic Church. Episcopalians I know recognize the type. Some high-church clerics construct an ultra-rigid world and display a fanatical devotion to the minutiae of rubrics. They seem to feel that without a totally controlled environment their world would collapse—probably into a chaos of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ desire and activity."

Then reviewing Mark D. Jordan's The Silence of Sodom, Podles writes,  "Jordan explains the traditionalist ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ as the product of a devil’s bargain. Since the Catholic priest enacts a campy, feminine role, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who are forbidden sɛҳuąƖ relations can live out a queer identity in full public view and approval. He can wear a dress, dress up statues, fuss endlessly over church decoration and rituals, and still be regarded as an exemplary Catholic. Jordan’s analysis may contain a grain of truth, if the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ and pedophiliac scandals are indeed really, and not just apparently, confined to the English-speaking world. These countries have had a predominantly Protestant culture. Rituals and ways of life that feel deep-rooted and natural in Latin, Catholic countries feel artificial and campy when transported to a Protestant environment. Precisely this artificiality and campiness attracts a certain type of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.

One Catholic charismatic leader whom I knew was also traditionalist in his devotions. He attended the Latin Mass, had an apartment full of statues, and a banner of the Immaculate Conception in his bedroom. He also hosted a party on Spy Wednesday after Tenebrae (which I always thought a bit odd). I later learned that he spent his summers in the gαy beach scene and eventually died of AIDS. His combination of contradictory traits may have been the result of the common sinfulness and self-deception we all share, but it may also have been a result of an attraction to the campiness of Catholic trappings in a Protestant culture. Opera attracts similar ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ followers in the United States, but not in Italy, for many of the same reasons."

For what it's worth.

Review of Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church

[MyrnaM]

I believe there has always been corruption within the Catholic church, anywhere you find humans you will find corruption, the sad part is when the seminaries were allowed to take in just anyone and the corruption was allowed by unlawful authority to fester like a cancer. (Just prior to Vatican II). It is more disgusting when the corruption reaches into the teachings of Christ, yet many Catholic think nothing of that!  It is easier to see the corruption within the Doctrines of the Church, especially today when your average Catholic almost has to be a theologian to persever.  

Even with the traditional groups there will be corruption from time to time, but hopefully when it is discovered it will be removed by the superior.  The problem today is the laity are too close to the religious, we know every step they take, because they depend on the laity more than prior to Vatican II. This is just a consequence of the Church being scattered, with no clear head, (Pope).  I also do not pretend to know the solution to the problem, perhaps this is why the Bible says "watch and pray".  

I don't believe it helps any to spread gossip on the Internet, and I do believe that those who do, will answer to God for it.  

Where children are concerned, I do believe the police should be called, because it is such a disgusting crime against the innocent children. Especially when these children are taught to trust the religious.  Even that millstone attached around their neck and tossing them into the water does not seem fitting.

I wonder how long God will permit this maddness.