Author Topic: Fr. Rostands new Letter, sspx.org (Read 5200 times)

Machabees · « **on:** December 14, 2012, 01:40:18 PM »

Another sad letter of Fr. Rostand (sspx.org) in respect to that, unfortunately, this crisis of the SSPX is not going away any time soon.

http://www.sspx.org/District_Superiors_Ltrs/2012_ds_ltrs/november_december_2012_ds_ltr.htm

You really need to know, and read, the other side of the discussion for yourself and for your families; on how the present Leader(s) of the SSPX continue to form his/their words, and recent letters, in order to stop all manner of conversation within their open -public- betrayal, of both: their founder Archbishop Lefebvre, as with the Faith itself, of the which, they wish to put under a false accord of obedience in the hands of modernist Rome.

Instead of answering the many fair and real questions throughout these months, addressed to their behavior, to their responsibility, and to their accountability as public religious leaders, Fr. Rostand uses a false “moral” premise to oblige complete silence.

He distracts the quest for truth -to “curiosity”; for honest discussion –to “gossip”; for unity –to “disobedience”; for honor –to disrespect of “authority”; and so on…

His new letter follows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Superior's
Letter to Friends & Benefactors
November-December 2012

Dear Friends and Benefactors,
Following my last letter, I would like to emphasize the dangers of the Internet.

When we speak about the threats of the Internet, we first think of the immoralities against the virtue of purity. Obviously, this is a real danger from which everyone must protect himself. Here, however, I would like to draw attention to another risk, specifically “cyber-gossip.”

The moral principle that we must consider in this regard is that the reputation and honor of any man, living or dead, is a spiritual good. To damage this reputation by rash judgment, detraction, or calumny is in itself a grave offense against justice and charity even though, did the injustice not regard grave matters, the fault might be venial.

The honor of a person can be impaired by rash judgments, by assuming without sufficient foundation the fault of others, by calumny, through expressing false accusations, or by detraction, disclosing real faults and failings of others. Since rash judgment is one of the most common forms of slander, it is useful to remind ourselves that in order to avoid rash judgments, we should be careful to interpret our neighbors’ actions, sayings, writings, and thoughts in a favorable way.

There are, on some rare occasions, reasons that may justify us to speak publicly about certain faults of others. One of the main reasons is the protection of the common good. Of course, this is exactly the argument used to “justify” most gossip and detraction, especially on the Internet. However, even when justified by good reasons, this may never be done without charity and respect. Therefore insults, slander, and boastfulness are always sinful.

Moral theology teaches also that whoever is guilty of damaging the reputation of others without sufficient cause is obliged in justice to repair and restore that reputation.

Further, it is not only sinful to spread rumors attacking the reputation or honor of others, but it is also sinful to listen to them or read them, especially when one makes no attempt to stop the violations of the honor of others whenever possible.

As you can see, this problem is not new and was addressed long before the Internet even existed! The world of digital media just makes the offense easier, more widespread, more quickly spread, the damage far worse, the reparation nearly impossible, and therefore the sin of spreading or reading much graver. Allow me therefore to give a few practical resolutions:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these”(Mk. 12:30-31). The virtue of charity must lead all our relationships in real life as well as in the virtual world of the Internet. As an act of charity, but also of justice, we ought to give a favorable interpretation to others’ actions, words, and writings, and not to condemn them immediately.

The more responsibility and authority our neighbor has, the more favorably we must perceive them. It is a very modern tendency to easily condemn those with authority, leading so effortlessly toward distrust.

On an even more practical note, everyone should forbid himself to chase these rumors, refusing or immediately deleting invitations to listen to or consult them, avoiding going to websites and blogs known for their disrespect and continual detraction, rash judgment, and calumnies. It is obviously not without sin to visit these types of media, even out of mere curiosity.

Above all, let us all make a genuine effort to spend less time on the Internet and dedicate a little more time to prayer. A rosary or an act of charity does much more good for the restoration of all things in Christ than hours lost on the computer. Every Catholic knows this. Do we have the courage to put it into practice?

May the Immaculate Heart of Mary help us all to follow her request. Prayers and sacrifices are the answers to our modern trials and anxieties.

With my prayers and blessing,

Fr. Arnaud Rostand

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2012, 01:49:31 PM »

If it weren't for the internet the truth of what's been going on wouldn't have gotten out.

They should have considered the reputations of others when they began their assault on Bishop Williamson.

The internet exposes their inconsistency for everyone to see - they can't evade it.

It's time for them to realize that honesty is the best policy. They need to resign, and give over control of the SSPX to the Apostles of Jesus and Mary, to the other three bishops.

subpallaeMariae · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2012, 01:51:53 PM »

"Further, it is not only sinful to spread rumors attacking the reputation or honor of others, but it is also sinful to listen to them or read them, especially when one makes no attempt to stop the violations of the honor of others whenever possible."

Maybe we should avoid sspx.org then since it is currently harming the reputation of a Third Order brother.
I wonder why they never percieve their own hypocrisy of at the same time condemning the interent and promoting the internet with the various sspx websites! :confused1:

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #3 on:** December 14, 2012, 01:54:39 PM »

http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/20996015-propaganda-war-3

(More lessons from Fr. Rostand...)

Dear Readers,

We wish to draw your attention to yet another vain attempt by the other side in the propaganda war.

Advertised on the front of the website, right beside Fr. Rostand's optimistic-looking face, is "District Superior's Nov-Dec newsletter: Sins of the Internet: cyber-gossip".

Well, call us a load of old cynics, but we think we can guess what this might be aimed at. Let's have a guess: good website's which you are allowed to look at would include sspx.org and DICI. Bad websites which it is a sin to look at would probably include Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, InThisSignYouShallConquer... any website where you might read things not 100% positive regarding the current position and direction of the SSPX!

Fr. Rostand's article is short. It is also short on fact, though long on insinuation. There are "some websites" (which?) where one will find "calumny" (mentioned 3 times) "rash judgements" (5 times), "detraction" (4 times) ... etc.

For the present we will content ourselves with the following observations:

1. To accuse someone (or even a website) of calumny, detraction, etc. without having specific evidence (i.e. a specific example or two which one can quote) is itself a form of calumny. It amounts to accusing someone (or people, in the case of a website) of sin, without any evidence. Which is itself a sin.

2. If people say something unflattering about an organisation or a person, even in the Church (let's say, a Bishop, for example), then it is not actually calumny if what they say is in fact true.

3. Where the issue in question involves doctrine, doctrinal clarity, the ability of an apostolate such as the SSPX to operate free from the snares of its enemies, the condemnation (or lack thereof) of error and modernism... in short, where souls are at stake, then the interests of the Faith and the salvation of souls outweighs the personal reputation of any one cleric.

4. To hold high clerical office in the Church means to be responsible for what happens among the faithful underneath. A Bishop will be aware (or ought to be) of his responsibility to speak truth with clarity and firmness, to be at all times consistent, and to be seen unhesitatingly and at all times to put the interests of the Faith before all else. He will also be well aware that any scandal arising from what he says and does will be laid at his door. Pointing a finger at the faithful simply will not do.

5. Fr. Rostand talks of "rumours" and "gossip", but never gives any specific example. He must be aware that, according to Catholic teaching, there are circuмstances in which one has not only a right, but a positive duty to listen to rumours, to take account of them, and perhaps to act on them, according to one's own best judgement. It very much depends (on the gossip, among other things).

6. Once again, however, within the context of the clergy watching over the faithful, a sudden spate of "rumours" and "gossip", especially rumours and gossip of prolonged duration (since at least last April, for example!) will always have its cause. That cause will very often be with the clergy themselves, and as before, the higher up, the greater the responsibility. And the solution can only really be found where the cause is to be found.

If it could be shown that clergy in positions of responsibility had, on several occasions, hidden from the faithful things which potentially greatly affect them, and things which they have a right to know; that when the cover-up failed and the truth began to leak out, those same clergy had denounced it as "internet rumours"; that later on, those same clergy had, either explicitly or implicitly confirmed that the "rumours" were actually true facts, but had offered no explanation for the cover up, for their attempted misrepresentation of facts as "rumour", for their attacking people with real concerns acting in good faith, and had shown no sign that they realised they had done something wrong, nor that they would not do so again in the future; that such clergy had been rewarded, whereas others who had not participated in this un-Catholic behaviour had been punished...
...if any of that could be shown to be the case (and it can!), then the faithful would be more than justified in seeking information, even at the risk of being accused of "gossip", whereas a "warning" like that of Fr. Rostand would begin to look very much like merely another deliberate mischaracterisation. Not to mention a "rash judgement", when it comes to "judging" people, groups, or even websites as "not without sin" when in fact no sin is involved at all, but on the contrary, in many cases a certain amount of heroic virtue and devotion to duty.

Perhaps that is why Fr. Rostand names no names and gives not one specific, concrete example. It is much easier to insinuate the faults of one's opponents, since then one does not have to provide any real evidence, and by the same token, the people concerned are unable to defend themselves against something that has not been specifically alleged. If he wishes to accuse Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, or any individuals of a specific sin and warn the faithful against them, let him do so. If his meaning is otherwise, let him clearly show that it is otherwise.

Finally, since Fr. Rostand says that we ought to pray instead of using the internet, we wish to remind our readers that Our Lord does not command us merely to pray, but to "Watch and Pray!"

"Watch" in this context means "be vigilant" like a watchman. For us, that means keeping ourselves informed. Not taking anyone's word for it (no, not even that of a priest!) but educating ourselves, and staying alert.

"sit autem sermo vester est est non non!"

Seraphia · « **Reply #4 on:** December 14, 2012, 01:56:13 PM »

You mean all those rumors months ago that ALL turned out to be facts?

Those rumors?

We need Truth to protect the 'common good'. Not silence, misdirection and lies.

A uninformed Catholic is a lukewarm Catholic.

And the question of the year is, why are the 'top dogs' so very angry about mere 'rumors'?

We know the answer.

wallflower · « **Reply #5 on:** December 14, 2012, 01:59:59 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Finally, since Fr. Rostand says that we ought to pray instead of using the internet, we wish to remind our readers that Our Lord does not command us merely to pray, but to "Watch and Pray!"

"Watch" here means "be vigilant" like a watchman. For us, that means keeping ourselves informed. Not taking anyone's word for it (no, not even a priest!) but educating ourselves, and staying alert.

"sit autem sermo vester est est non non!"

Amen.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:14:46 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

If it could be shown that clergy in positions of responsibility had, on several occasions, hidden from the faithful things which potentially greatly affect them, and things which they have a right to know; that when the cover-up failed and the truth began to leak out, those same clergy had denounced it as "internet rumours"; that later on, those same clergy had, either explicitly or implicitly confirmed that the "rumours" were actually true facts, but had offered no explanation for the cover up, for their attempted misrepresentation of facts as "rumour", for their attacking people with real concerns acting in good faith, and had shown no sign that they realised they had done something wrong, not that they would not do so again i the future; that such clergy had been rewarded, whereas others who had not participated in such un-Catholic behaviour had been punished...
...if any of that could be shown to be the case (and it can!), then the faithful would be more than justified in seeking information, even at the risk of being accused of "gossip", whereas a "warning" like that of Fr. Rostand would begin to look very much like merely another deliberate mischaracterisation. Not to mention a "rash judgement", when it comes to "judging" people, groups, or even websites as sinful when in fact no sin is involved at all, but on the contrary, in many cases a certain amount of heroic virtue.

Perhaps that is why Fr. Rostand names no names and gives not one specific, concrete example. It is much easier to insinuate the faults of one's opponents, since then one does not have to provide any real evidence, and by the same token, the people concerned are unable to defend themselves against something that has not been specifically alleged. If he wishes to accuse Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, or any individuals of a specific sin and warn the faithful against them, let him do so. If his meaning is otherwise, let him clearly show that it otherwise.

This is a key point.

WHY did the "rumors" just start in April/May 2011? And why do they persist?
Why was CathInfo not warned against by the SSPX headquarters earlier? We've been here for 6 years.

The first paragraph says it all. They have been proven to be silent with regard to important, required explanations, they have cried "rumor" several times when such "rumors" turned out to be solid facts, etc.

And now it's just obvious they want everyone off the Internet so people can be kept in the dark.

Those who listen to their counsel DESERVE to be deceived and to wake up in the Novus Ordo 5 years from now.

stgobnait · « **Reply #7 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:15:00 PM »

the internet only proves to us.. we are not 'mad'dogs.... the evidence of our eyes tell us, things are wrong, they are afraid of the internet, because , if you see something in your chapel that concerns you, and i, thousands of miles away, have simular concerns, we cant all be mad dogs.......

stgobnait · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:19:14 PM »

and to every priest who ever warned me not to believe rumours on internet, shame on you,

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:19:22 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

the internet only proves to us.. we are not 'mad'dogs.... the evidence of our eyes tell us, things are wrong, they are afraid of the internet, because , if you see something in your chapel that concerns you, and i, thousands of miles away, have simular concerns, we cant all be mad dogs.......

That's exactly right. They used their influence over the chapels to destroy locally the reputation of individuals in chapels. And the internet cancels their power to isolate and silence those people.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:20:35 PM »

#@#$#$@!

:really-mad2:

Quo Vadis Petre had a REALLY REALLY good post, and I decimated it!

I could have SWORE I clicked "quote" -- not "edit"!

But now I trashed his post.

Does anyone have it saved off? Did Quo Vadis Petre type it out in a text file before he posted it? (I hope?)

UGH!!!!

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:25:20 PM »

Actually, here is the article (link: http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/20996015-propaganda-war-3 ):

(More lessons from Fr. Rostand...)

Dear Readers,

We wish to draw your attention to yet another vain attempt by the other side in the propaganda war.

Advertised on the front of the website, right beside Fr. Rostand's optimistic-looking face, is "District Superior's Nov-Dec newsletter: Sins of the Internet: cyber-gossip".

Well, call us a load of old cynics, but we think we can guess what this might be aimed at. Let's have a guess: good website's which you are allowed to look at would include sspx.org and DICI. Bad websites which it is a sin to look at would probably include Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, InThisSignYouShallConquer... any website where you might read things not 100% positive regarding the current position and direction of the SSPX!

Fr. Rostand's article is short. It is also short on fact, though long on insinuation. There are "some websites" (which?) where one will find "calumny" (mentioned 3 times) "rash judgements" (5 times), "detraction" (4 times) ... etc.

For the present we will content ourselves with the following observations:

1. To accuse someone (or even a website) of calumny, detraction, etc. without having specific evidence (i.e. a specific example or two which one can quote) is itself a form of calumny. It amounts to accusing someone (or people, in the case of a website) of sin, without any evidence. Which is itself a sin.

2. If people say something unflattering about an organisation or a person, even in the Church (let's say, a Bishop, for example), then it is not actually calumny if what they say is in fact true.

3. Where the issue in question involves doctrine, doctrinal clarity, the ability of an apostolate such as the SSPX to operate free from the snares of its enemies, the condemnation (or lack thereof) of error and modernism... in short, where souls are at stake, then the interests of the Faith and the salvation of souls outweighs the personal reputation of any one cleric.

4. To hold high clerical office in the Church means to be responsible for what happens among the faithful underneath. A Bishop will be aware (or ought to be) of his responsibility to speak truth with clarity and firmness, to be at all times consistent, and to be seen unhesitatingly and at all times to put the interests of the Faith before all else. He will also be well aware that any scandal arising from what he says and does will be laid at his door. Pointing a finger at the faithful simply will not do.

5. Fr. Rostand talks of "rumours" and "gossip", but never gives any specific example. He must be aware that, according to Catholic teaching, there are circuмstances in which one has not only a right, but a positive duty to listen to rumours, to take account of them, and perhaps to act on them, according to one's own best judgement. It very much depends (on the gossip, among other things).

6. Once again, however, within the context of the clergy watching over the faithful, a sudden spate of "rumours" and "gossip", especially rumours and gossip of prolonged duration (since at least last April, for example!) will always have its cause. That cause will very often be with the clergy themselves, and as before, the higher up, the greater the responsibility. And the solution can only really be found where the cause is to be found.

If it could be shown that clergy in positions of responsibility had, on several occasions, hidden from the faithful things which potentially greatly affect them, and things which they have a right to know; that when the cover-up failed and the truth began to leak out, those same clergy had denounced it as "internet rumours"; that later on, those same clergy had, either explicitly or implicitly confirmed that the "rumours" were actually true facts, but had offered no explanation for the cover up, for their attempted misrepresentation of facts as "rumour", for their attacking people with real concerns acting in good faith, and had shown no sign that they realised they had done something wrong, nor that they would not do so again in the future; that such clergy had been rewarded, whereas others who had not participated in this un-Catholic behaviour had been punished...
...if any of that could be shown to be the case (and it can!), then the faithful would be more than justified in seeking information, even at the risk of being accused of "gossip", whereas a "warning" like that of Fr. Rostand would begin to look very much like merely another deliberate mischaracterisation. Not to mention a "rash judgement", when it comes to "judging" people, groups, or even websites as "not without sin" when in fact no sin is involved at all, but on the contrary, in many cases a certain amount of heroic virtue and devotion to duty.

Perhaps that is why Fr. Rostand names no names and gives not one specific, concrete example. It is much easier to insinuate the faults of one's opponents, since then one does not have to provide any real evidence, and by the same token, the people concerned are unable to defend themselves against something that has not been specifically alleged. If he wishes to accuse Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, or any individuals of a specific sin and warn the faithful against them, let him do so. If his meaning is otherwise, let him clearly show that it is otherwise.

Finally, since Fr. Rostand says that we ought to pray instead of using the internet, we wish to remind our readers that Our Lord does not command us merely to pray, but to "Watch and Pray!"

"Watch" in this context means "be vigilant" like a watchman. For us, that means keeping ourselves informed. Not taking anyone's word for it (no, not even that of a priest!) but educating ourselves, and staying alert.

"sit autem sermo vester est est non non!"

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:27:33 PM »

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

Actually, here is the article (link: http://www.therecusant.com/apps/blog/show/20996015-propaganda-war-3 ):

(More lessons from Fr. Rostand...)

Dear Readers,

We wish to draw your attention to yet another vain attempt by the other side in the propaganda war.

Advertised on the front of the website, right beside Fr. Rostand's optimistic-looking face, is "District Superior's Nov-Dec newsletter: Sins of the Internet: cyber-gossip".

Well, call us a load of old cynics, but we think we can guess what this might be aimed at. Let's have a guess: good website's which you are allowed to look at would include sspx.org and DICI. Bad websites which it is a sin to look at would probably include Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, InThisSignYouShallConquer... any website where you might read things not 100% positive regarding the current position and direction of the SSPX!

Fr. Rostand's article is short. It is also short on fact, though long on insinuation. There are "some websites" (which?) where one will find "calumny" (mentioned 3 times) "rash judgements" (5 times), "detraction" (4 times) ... etc.

For the present we will content ourselves with the following observations:

1. To accuse someone (or even a website) of calumny, detraction, etc. without having specific evidence (i.e. a specific example or two which one can quote) is itself a form of calumny. It amounts to accusing someone (or people, in the case of a website) of sin, without any evidence. Which is itself a sin.

2. If people say something unflattering about an organisation or a person, even in the Church (let's say, a Bishop, for example), then it is not actually calumny if what they say is in fact true.

3. Where the issue in question involves doctrine, doctrinal clarity, the ability of an apostolate such as the SSPX to operate free from the snares of its enemies, the condemnation (or lack thereof) of error and modernism... in short, where souls are at stake, then the interests of the Faith and the salvation of souls outweighs the personal reputation of any one cleric.

4. To hold high clerical office in the Church means to be responsible for what happens among the faithful underneath. A Bishop will be aware (or ought to be) of his responsibility to speak truth with clarity and firmness, to be at all times consistent, and to be seen unhesitatingly and at all times to put the interests of the Faith before all else. He will also be well aware that any scandal arising from what he says and does will be laid at his door. Pointing a finger at the faithful simply will not do.

5. Fr. Rostand talks of "rumours" and "gossip", but never gives any specific example. He must be aware that, according to Catholic teaching, there are circuмstances in which one has not only a right, but a positive duty to listen to rumours, to take account of them, and perhaps to act on them, according to one's own best judgement. It very much depends (on the gossip, among other things).

6. Once again, however, within the context of the clergy watching over the faithful, a sudden spate of "rumours" and "gossip", especially rumours and gossip of prolonged duration (since at least last April, for example!) will always have its cause. That cause will very often be with the clergy themselves, and as before, the higher up, the greater the responsibility. And the solution can only really be found where the cause is to be found.

If it could be shown that clergy in positions of responsibility had, on several occasions, hidden from the faithful things which potentially greatly affect them, and things which they have a right to know; that when the cover-up failed and the truth began to leak out, those same clergy had denounced it as "internet rumours"; that later on, those same clergy had, either explicitly or implicitly confirmed that the "rumours" were actually true facts, but had offered no explanation for the cover up, for their attempted misrepresentation of facts as "rumour", for their attacking people with real concerns acting in good faith, and had shown no sign that they realised they had done something wrong, nor that they would not do so again in the future; that such clergy had been rewarded, whereas others who had not participated in this un-Catholic behaviour had been punished...
...if any of that could be shown to be the case (and it can!), then the faithful would be more than justified in seeking information, even at the risk of being accused of "gossip", whereas a "warning" like that of Fr. Rostand would begin to look very much like merely another deliberate mischaracterisation. Not to mention a "rash judgement", when it comes to "judging" people, groups, or even websites as "not without sin" when in fact no sin is involved at all, but on the contrary, in many cases a certain amount of heroic virtue and devotion to duty.

Perhaps that is why Fr. Rostand names no names and gives not one specific, concrete example. It is much easier to insinuate the faults of one's opponents, since then one does not have to provide any real evidence, and by the same token, the people concerned are unable to defend themselves against something that has not been specifically alleged. If he wishes to accuse Cathinfo.com, Ignis Ardens, or any individuals of a specific sin and warn the faithful against them, let him do so. If his meaning is otherwise, let him clearly show that it is otherwise.

Finally, since Fr. Rostand says that we ought to pray instead of using the internet, we wish to remind our readers that Our Lord does not command us merely to pray, but to "Watch and Pray!"

"Watch" in this context means "be vigilant" like a watchman. For us, that means keeping ourselves informed. Not taking anyone's word for it (no, not even that of a priest!) but educating ourselves, and staying alert.

"sit autem sermo vester est est non non!"

THANK YOU, Quo Vadis.

This is a very, very good article. I recommend everyone read it!!

John Grace · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:32:50 PM »

Quote from: stgobnait

and to every priest who ever warned me not to believe rumours on internet, shame on you,

I would hope and assume people believe facts and not rumours.

John Grace · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2012, 02:44:22 PM »

Quote

One of the main reasons is the protection of the common good

'William of Norwich' went public for the protection of the common good. I can't recall who posted the 'Request for assistance from those who love Catholic Tradition' but the final appeal was for

Quote

Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church.