That having been said, AT NO TIME DID I EVER SAY that everything he says is false. I never suggested such a conclusion, because that wouldn't be logical. You can be a non-Trad, or a sorry excuse for a Catholic, and still utter the truth about something.
Yeah, that's a similar strawman fallacy to what Dr. Sungenis uses on the FE debate, falsely alleging that FEs hold that NASA is lying about everything ... when we simply say that we don't know whether or not they're lying in any given situation, since they've been caught lying (by Sungenis' own admission).
Similarly, I don't recall on this thread where anyone says that nothing he says should be taken seriously or even that anything he said at all was false.
But it's important to understand context ... who's who, what are their motivations, etc. So, the pictures here as well as the point I made ... as I was less focused on the pictures, such as the fact that he spoke approvingly of the "official" Church and continues to make comments refering to groups who are not part of the "official" Church as "fringe" and ... in this latest rant, rerfers to CI as a "cult".
With regard to the pictures with immodesty in them, he dismisses the individual who covered the bare parts up as "prudish". OK, then, I guess Pope Pius XI was also a "prude", since the last directives we received from the Church about modesty state that it's "forbidden" for women to expose certain body parts ... and those were the ones that were covered up by the individual. You could claim prudishness ... or else you could claim, obedience to the teaching of the Holy Father Pope Pius XI who declared the exposure of said anatomy to be "forbidden".
See, if you're rejecting the modesty standards of Pius XI as "prudish", refering (approvingly) to the "official" Church while contrasting Traditional groups as "fringe" and even "cult"-ish ... that makes one question whether you're actually a TRADITIONAL Catholic. So, then if you're not a Traditional Catholic, why are you availing yourself of priests whom that "official" Church declares to be out of communion with it? Please do explain.
Even then, none of this necessarily invalidates any of the assertions you've made ... and I believe the consensus is that you have in fact told the truth. But are there some missing pieces. You wrote an e-mail. Bishop Morgan blocked you. Police were called. But you also copied the accused priest on the e-mail. So this could be a
post hoc propter hoc fallacy, no? Bishop Morgan may have blocked you for other reasons, perhaps not even having read that last e-mail, and I suspect it was the accused "Father Fake" who called the police rather than Bishop Morgan ... so I think it's important that you clarify that rather than allowing that possible insinuation to remain. I think most of the issues we've had were against this one rogue poster who feigned broken English, provided no facts, no details, kept contradicting himself -- and clearly exhibited a certain malicious predisposition against the clergy of the so-called "Resistance" group with whom this priest is associated.
We had the same thing going on with a group called "Church Militant" that clearly had an animosity towards the Society of St. Pius X and exaggerated many points, often engaging in what had to be called slander ... but that did not necessarily disprove all of their information.
People here are trying to get to the truth ... and are attempting to ferret it out. If these Bishops have indeed knowingly and deliverately continued to work with this priests who had been convicted of various predations, that behavior would be utterly reprehensible. For "cult member" that I am, I have openly called for the indictment and sentencing of Bishop Bernard Fellay of SSPX (depite rejecting many of Church Militant's claims) as being guilty of aiding and abetting, and effectively being an accomplice in grave crimes against the youth.
At this point, we do need to hear from Bishops Morgan and Ballini.
So I believe that it's dishonest of you to smear us as a cult attempting to discredit the story. If we find out that these Bishops have actually engaged in this behavior, we will certainly call them out here, but at the same time the accused also have rights to have their side of the story heard, as two wrongs would not make a right if we were to ruin someone's good name without having all the facts ... and that's all we're trying to do here at this time, get all the facts.
Topic: Man arrested for email (Read 5579 times)