Author Topic: Declaration of Priest Meeting - Mosteiro de Santa Cruz (Read 15181 times)

stgobnait · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:47:40 PM »

Pray for the resistance.....

magdalena · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:50:50 PM »

Quote from: tegoMass

Domitilla,

The main point is that "one" is fighting for the Faith. How long did you know him? From my personal experience he is a good priest.

Magdalena,

How on earth do we know Domitilla's info is correct?

Let's all pray for him.

Our Lady of Akita, pray for us!!!

:smile:

tegoMass,

Let's just say that I know, and leave it at that. And you are very correct in that we should pray for him.

stgobnait · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2013, 03:56:12 PM »

All this is very unfair to the 'one' in question...... someone in a place of responsibility, should look into this, whatever this is.....

Domitilla · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2013, 04:27:08 PM »

People in "a place of responsibility" within the SSPX have been fully apprised of the details of the "one" for at least 11 years.

stgobnait · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2013, 04:34:38 PM »

So, by implication, the resistance have taken the 'one' off sspx hands.... 11years is a long time to do nothing, not good,

stgobnait · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2013, 04:57:31 PM »

and in any case, its still a smear..... no accusation, just inuendo. not good either.

Domitilla · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:27:29 PM »

You may accuse Ben and I of anything you like. My purpose was simply to confirm the veracity of Ben's posts, for which he was roundly criticised. Who would want to air another's "dirty laundry"? We were just warning people to be very, very careful as an act of charity. So call it whatever you would like.

The SSPX Leadership has been fully informed; the reports are in their files.

Our Lady of Good Success, please pray for us.

magdalena · « **Reply #37 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:33:49 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

So, by implication, the resistance have taken the 'one' off sspx hands.... 11years is a long time to do nothing, not good,

I would stick with this. And don't forget the prayers.

magdalena · « **Reply #38 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:42:05 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

You may accuse Ben and I of anything you like. My purpose was simply to confirm the veracity of Ben's posts, for which he was roundly criticised. Who would want to air another's "dirty laundry"? We were just warning people to be very, very careful as an act of charity. So call it whatever you would like.

The SSPX Leadership has been fully informed; the reports are in their files.

Our Lady of Good Success, please pray for us.

Well put.

Domitilla · « **Reply #39 on:** February 10, 2013, 05:47:28 PM »

By the way, I do not know Ben. I have only read his posts and they could have been written by me. I find it very interesting that this unknown person's experience mirrored my own.

ben · « **Reply #40 on:** February 10, 2013, 07:35:51 PM »

Domitilla - I too have written for charity. I had suspected others had been victim. Just want people to be careful and to pray for him.

Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.

Matthew · « **Reply #41 on:** February 11, 2013, 11:11:20 AM »

Ok, this has gone far enough.

Either AIR the dirty laundry, or STOP making insinuations, hints, or vague accusations.

How can Catholics think this is morally acceptable?

So it's detraction to say,

"John Doe tends to have sticky fingers. He steals things and once even fraudulently altered the company's expense records for his own gain."

But it's 100% pure Catholic to say:

"John Doe is bad news. He never should have become an accountant. I'm not going to give any details...let's just say we should all pray for him."

:confused1:

I just don't see it.

How is the latter ANY MORE GENTLE to the poor man's reputation? How is the latter not JUST AS BAD -- IF NOT WORSE than the former?

Let me explain something. Leaving things to the imagination is a very powerful device.

I could give a hundred examples, but I think most of you understand. Leaving the viewer to imagine something scary for himself is 1000X more powerful that plopping ANYTHING on the screen by WETA or any another Hollywood special effects studio.

Alfred Hitchcock made himself famous using exactly this technique. All good scary movies do this.

For the younger among you, imagine you're in an MMORPG (multiplayer online RPG) and a guy comes on and starts killing other players. Which would make you respect/fear him more?

A) He starts trash talking
B) He doesn't say a word

With option B), he could be the devil, a super intelligent bot, some famous player, etc.

But once he opens his mouth, all the other options are no longer possible.

Remember the saying, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain

Matthew · « **Reply #42 on:** February 11, 2013, 11:20:22 AM »

So when you say, "Fr. Dardis is bad news for the Resistance." I am forced to wonder WHY.

You've done opened your mouth and damaged his reputation by saying that. Do you understand I had no idea there were ANY dents in his reputation? Now three people have testified that he's "bad news" and that he has a "past".

In my mind now, his reputation is less than it was before this thread started.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? The damage has already been done.

You can play pious Catholic all you want, but you're hypocritical for keeping your detraction vague.

Now I have to wonder WHAT exactly Fr. Dardis "did" to merit this reputation with some people.

Who/what do I need to lock up when Fr. Dardis comes over to say Mass?

You know, if you're unsure about the justice of letting something be known, it's best to say NOTHING. Not redact all the specific details from your accusation.

Like this:

"Hey everyone! I feel compelled to let you know that Fr. Dardis likes to ___ ______ __ ________, and/or ____ __ ______ ___ ___. So just be careful when you have him at your Resistance chapel."

CWA · « **Reply #43 on:** February 11, 2013, 11:26:57 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Either AIR the dirty laundry, or STOP making insinuations, hints, or vague accusations.

How can Catholics think this is morally acceptable?

So it's detraction to say,

"John Doe tends to have sticky fingers. He steals things and once even fraudulently altered the company's expense records for his own gain."

But it's 100% pure Catholic to say:

"John Doe is bad news. He never should have become an accountant. I'm not going to give any details...let's just say we should all pray for him."

:confused1:

I just don't see it.

How is the latter ANY MORE GENTLE to the poor man's reputation? How is the latter not JUST AS BAD -- IF NOT WORSE than the former?

Let me explain something. Leaving things to the imagination is a very powerful device.

I could give a hundred examples, but I think most of you understand. Leaving the viewer to imagine something scary for himself is 1000X more powerful that plopping ANYTHING on the screen by WETA or any another Hollywood special effects studio.

I totally agree. It always bothered me when people would insinuate something, and then say, "well I can't tell you, but just pray for him/her" - because exactly as you said, Matthew, my imagination is probably thinking of something worse than what might actually be the case. Better to say nothing at all.

stgobnait · « **Reply #44 on:** February 11, 2013, 11:47:57 AM »

another reason to avoid ineundo... i thought it was a different priest that was being refered to.... pray for all priests.