After having pondered and prayed, I have perceived an exceeding great need for an equilibrium wherewith one may eschew the excesses that have caused so many dissensions and afflictions in the traditionalist movement, in the private and public fora, and I find myself
compelled by the exigencies of conscience to declare the following:
I hereby retract any support, together with any seeming thereof, that I may have given to the following individuals, who have lost all credibility in my eyes:
1) The author of the
Pristina Liturgica Blog, who is also the author of the despicable and slanderous
Mater Dei Seminary/CMRI Watch Blog.
2) The author of the
The Lay Pulpit Blog.
3) The author(s) of the
VoV Watch websiteI have been given to understand that the individuals behind the above-mentioned websites have been distorting and sensationalizing certain things and consequently (whether witting or unwittingly) have manipulated and radicalized other Catholics for the sake of petty revenge and personal self-serving agendas.
I believe that individuals such as Rev. Frs. Ramolla and Hall have been used all along by these hyper-critical, anti-clerical vigilantes for their own interests and to serve their own notions.
With the exception of the Mater Dei Seminary/CMRI Watch Blog (which I find very despicable to an extent that to describe it accurately would require the use of profanities), the above sites have served their purpose in exposing certain abuses in the sedevacantist traditional movement, and it is only because friends of mine have themselves seen such abuses that I still can assent to their report of said reports as factually accurate. These individuals’ assessment of said reports and the conclusions consequent upon such assessment are things I have to carefully reconsider. However, facts are facts, no matter who reports them.
Some time ago, as response to Raoul76, I wrote the following, which Matthew adopted as his own position with some modifications. Now I myself have to modify these statements, the emendations being written in red color, and key statements which demand emphasis being underlined:
Perhaps I may make a complete idiot of myself for entering into this exchange, but after much reflection I feel myself compelled to make the following general remarks, which are not aimed at anyone in particular, although they chiefly concern the American sedevacantist world (since it is the only one I've ever known so far):
1. I believe there has to be a balance between zeal for defending the integrity and purity of the practice and profession of the faith, which in these sad days sometimes entails an ardent battle against errant clerics and layfolk (which is true for other traditionalist circles and the N.O. diocesan predicament), and a spirit of prayerful recollection that does not allow such zeal to become a hindrance to the cultivation of the interior life.
2. The individual Catholic has a right and duty to correct, after much prayer and prudent reflection and in all humility, verity and charity those clerics who presume to have a sort of authority wherewith to bind their consciences when these same clerics have proven themselves unworthy and incompetent to exercise such authority by manifest abuse. This is especially so because all that the present-day “independent” clerics can claim is supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external for a, solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia – lest they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament wherein they have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor inherent ordinary jurisdiction since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147 “§ 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta.”) . These individual Catholics, moreover, are obliged by fraternal charity to warn their fellow brethren of clerical abuses, substantiated by credible testimony and evidence, that may scandalize or endanger their souls and those souls under their care (as in the case of parents, educators, &c.).
3. The above cannot be effectively or efficiently done without the prior cultivation of those acquired moral virtues that will ensure clarity of mind in the midst of the most obfuscating of questions, and stability of heart before the most unnerving of trials. In addition to the prayer and good works that the cultivation of such virtues requires, there needs to be a certain amount of discretion in expressing oneself when it comes to these grave matters. Self-abnegation ought especially to be practiced in order to thoroughly purify the soul from all self-attachment so as to avoid perilous delusions and unwittingly fight for petty interests rather than for the edification of one’s neighbor.
Now, having made those general remarks, I shall now address a particular point that was made by Mike:
I took a look at the VoV site, it is indeed disgusting. There is no cause whatsoever to talk about priests and bishops that way, I don't care what their problems are. When St. Francis met a priest who was openly living with a concubine, did St. Francis go and write a website about him mocking him? No, he bent down and wept and begged the priest not to tarnish himself, as he was consecrated to God. I understand being outraged by a priest's actions, but this feels like calculated destruction of someone's reputation.
Sometimes The tone of the criticism in question does unnerve and disgust me, and it is quite saddening, but it is saddening precisely because it is an understandable reaction to abuses that are utter baneful and should be denounced. These abuses actually took place. All pious sentimentality in the world will not change that FACT. Neither does it change the fact that these hyper-critical vigilantes do cross the line in a very disturbing way.
Yes, the example of St. Francis is to be imitated, because Holy Orders confers upon a man a dignity that is wholly hallowed and ontologically superior to even the dignity of the Angelic choirs. However, St. Francis never faced the possibility of reverencing Episcopi vagantes or clerics who may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953 “Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato.”, Can. 2370 “Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, presbyteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit.”). As I have said before, it is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission nor jurisdiction in the external forum that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences or ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
These clerics must prove themselves worthy of the pastoral care of the faithful before the souls for whom the intend to care with whatever supplied jurisdiction the Church can give, and this onus is all the more grave precisely because of the sanctity of Holy Orders. As they say in the courts, the burden of proof falls upon them. If they prove themselves unworthy or incompetent by manifest abuse, injustice, immorality, imbecility, &c., then they lose the right to be reverenced merely because of the sacredness of their Orders until they do penance and reparation for their misdeeds, just as a violated Church cannot be licitly used for Holy Mass and other sacred rites (cf. Can. 1173, § 1 “In violata ecclesia , antequam reconcilietur, nefas est divina celebrare officia, Sacramenta ministrare, mortuos sepelire.”) until it is reconciled according to the rites of the Roman Pontifical or Ritual (Can. 1174, § 1 “Ecclesia violata reconcilietur, quam citissime poterit, secundum ritus in probatis liturgicis libris descriptos.” Cf. Pontificale Romanum, Tit. De ecclesiae et coemeterii reconciliation; Rituale Romanum, Tit. VIII., cap. xxviii., Ritus reconciliandi ecclesiam violatam, n. 1, 6.): for even the Oriental schismatics have valid Orders and material apostolicity, and yet the faithful are not to compelled to reverence them for those reasons alone, much less to have recourse to their ministries
This is what the clerics who have deserved such violent censure have done, and they appear to be pertinacious in their error, since they have yet to apologize to the injured parties. Good will must be presumed in the spirit of charity, but there is just too much evidence to maintain this stance when it comes to the clerics whom the VoV site and Pristina Liturgica criticize. Yet this does not excuse or explain away the manifest signs of bad will that the afore-mentioned authors responsible for those websites: on the contrary, it makes their lack of charity, humility and prudence all the more despicable.
It would be nice if their tone was a bit tempered, but I cannot blame them for that, because they have witnessed (or have been subject to) a systematic victimization that is simply inexcusable, but they are to be rebuked for (in an irony that no fiction can concoct) unwittingly following the example of those clerics whom they endeavor to criticize.
They doing a very important service for the sedevacantist faithful for the reasons I have already mentioned. The authors of those sites are not clerics who pretend to bind consciences, so they don't have the burden of proof in that regard, However, they have failed to comport themselves in a manner becoming devout Catholics and have debased themselves to the point of becoming willing mouthpieces of the cynicism and virulent anti-clericalism that betrays a bad will and ultimately conspires with the enemies of Christendom. When it comes to their allegations about particular instances, however, they have provided ample proof. They are just merely reporters of unhappy happenings, who ironically have made these happenings all the more unhappy with their contentions and spiritual negligences.
One may argue, "Well, what good can this do for their spiritual life? Are they personally more holy because of their internet reporting?" Well, such an argument is a mendicant for questions, since it is impoverished of answers. First of all, no one created or creatable intellect has the cardiognosis whereby to judge the state of souls, or to gauge the spiritual progress of the individual Christian; we cannot be judges of consciences. Secondly, the faithful need to be aware of these problems in order to arrive at a prudent and well-informed choice when it comes to the practical aspect of certain key praxes immediately pertaining to the faith: what Chapel to attend, to which Seminary to send young men, to which collection basket to give what amount of money, &c. Without the ability to make such practical judgements, one cannot have the stability necessary in order to cultivate the interior life, especially when there is danger of scandal that will either tempt one to despair and abandon the faith, or lull one into a Quietist and apathetic torpor that will merely perpetuate the sort of mediocrity that had allowed these abuses to occur in the first place.
When a man decides freely to attain to Sacred Orders in these confusing times for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, and his actions and attitude betray a contrary motive and result in outright abuse, then the faithful must make a practical judgment in order to avoid scandalizing themselves and others.
Do the VoV and Pristina Liturgica sites do a good service, in light of the things mentioned above? Yes, in my opinion. However, they are now undermining what they supposedly have as their goal and have already become part of the problem of which they complain.
Are they above censure? No: no one is above censure. They could temper their tone, but they were the ones who witnessed this, and it is understandable that they express themselves the way they do they ought to give themselves over to prayer and good works rather than insist in pursuing petty grudges. They made their point. It’s time to move on.
All I can do is pray for them, as well as for the clerics who have caused all this mess, and especially for those clerics who have suffered because of it.
Again, these are my personal opinions. I may be wrong, so don't cite me as authority (please!).
I apologize for misleading anyone regarding this particular matter.
I hope we can all have a very edifying Advent that will be fruitful not merely for ourselves, but for our neighbor and shall contribute to the restoration of Holy Mother Church.
Topic: Retraction (Read 13711 times)