Author Topic: Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange  (Read 2787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18160
  • Reputation: +8250/-634
  • Gender: Male
Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
« on: May 13, 2012, 06:40:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.dici.org/en/news/communique-from-the-general-house-of-the-society-of-saint-pius-x-may-11-2012/



    Quote


    Communiqué from the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (May 11, 2012)

    11-05-2012  
    Filed under From Tradition, News

    An exchange of private letters between the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X and the three other bishops was circulated on the Internet on May 9, 2012. This behavior is reprehensible. The person who breached the confidentiality of this internal correspondence committed a serious sin.

    Its publication will encourage those who are fomenting division; the Society of Saint Pius X asks its priests and lay faithful not to respond except by redoubling their prayers, so that only the will of God may be done, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

    Menzingen, May 11, 2012


    "A serious sin" --- I'm sorry, but I am reminded of a recent news item from
    nearby Orange County, where Bishop Todd Brown admonished his congregation
    by telling them that they had to stand when they return to the pew after
    receiving Communion, and those who insist on kneeling commit a mortal sin.

    These are the kinds of things we will be seeing a
    lot more of, if a "deal" is made.


    This is exactly how they pulled the wool over our eyes during and after Vatican II.

    I'm sorry to say, that if it were not for the circulation of these letters, I would not
    have anything but innuendo and speculation to consider, while we await the news
    of what has transpired without our ability to say anything about it. At least this
    way, we can have some idea if the news media is entirely wrong (which often
    happens with articles on religion) or only slightly misinformed. So from this small
    corner of the world, we appreciate having something of substance, thanks to the
    posting of these letters.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #1 on: May 13, 2012, 09:08:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The SSPX is obsessed with controlling information.  This is general throughout the organization, I'm not talking about the confessional seal, I'm talking about secrecy imposed on dubious moral grounds in order to stifle all questions and to control minds.  It was said the contents of the doctrinal preamble were none of the laity's business.

    The real positions of the bishops of the SSPX are the business of the Catholic Faithful.  It is vitally important that they have that information, there is no duty to Bishop Fellay's cult-like control that trumps the rights of the Faithful to know what the men leading the SSPX really think, behind the traditional window dressing.


    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2266/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #2 on: May 13, 2012, 02:07:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because the sellout men have got a skeleton in their closet, they are lucifugous.

    But the truth will come to light.

    Offline PereJoseph

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1411
    • Reputation: +1973/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #3 on: May 13, 2012, 03:15:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The SSPX can't have it both ways.  They have no ordinary jurisdiction and authority and cannot, therefore, convict people of sin for "causing division" in their group once it is established that the Superior General is no longer serving the cause of the orthodox Faith.  If they do insist on their authority and jurisdiction, then how come they don't defer to the same prerogatives in the man they insist must be identified as the Pope ?  This communiqué is hollow, just like all the rest of their talk of "respecting the authority of the Superior General."  How come they don't respect the authority of the man they believe is the Roman Pontiff to teach the Catholic Faith ?  Apparently Bishop Fellay can enjoy privileges and rights that the man he believes is the Holy Father cannot.  Dividing the SSPX between the orthodox side and the capitulating, ecumenical, liberal side is a work of mercy and no "serious sin."  And if part of the SSPX is not planning on capitulation to Modernist Rome, why the condemnations of those who publish the letters and discuss what they clearly demonstrate ?

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #4 on: May 14, 2012, 11:41:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you, PereJoseph, for a well-expressed post.
    Your level-headed approach is helpful in context.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #5 on: May 14, 2012, 11:50:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus
    The SSPX is obsessed with controlling information.  This is general throughout the organization, I'm not talking about the confessional seal, I'm talking about secrecy imposed on dubious moral grounds in order to stifle all questions and to control minds.  It was said the contents of the doctrinal preamble were none of the laity's business.

    The real positions of the bishops of the SSPX are the business of the Catholic Faithful.  It is vitally important that they have that information, there is no duty to Bishop Fellay's cult-like control that trumps the rights of the Faithful to know what the men leading the SSPX really think, behind the traditional window dressing.


    I attended a retreat at Los Gatos last year with a friend, and on the way up, I told him that the priests there might have something to say to clear up the confusion going around regarding the Preamble and negotiations.

    I was wrong.

    When we arrived we got the clear impression this was all about business, and that there is far too much ground to cover in the retreat itself, such that any political discussion about the SSPX would derail the whole purpose of the work at hand. We spent our time there in total silence (Ignatian retreat standard practice) and only on the last day, after the lunch, did we finally get to speak with each other, and I was surprised to hear that the other retreatants were not very interested in speculation.

    But that was before the leaked letters. I can only wonder how much the ambient feel has changed at the retreat centers since these letters were released...
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #6 on: May 14, 2012, 02:09:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see this unfold, and I see how entirely -wise- the priest at my church who left the Society many years ago, really is.

    My heartfelt sympathy goes out to all in the SSPX, and I pray that God will open the eyes of Fellay, or that the three bishops will expell him from his position forcibly, if necessary.

    The priest at my church had cancer removed, and they gave him four months to live after said surgery. He is still alive, years afterwards, but he is getting weaker.

    If there is a silver lining to any of this, perhaps there will be someone from the Society that stood against any agreement with Rome, that would come here after Father leaves us to eternity.

    I think it's largely been forgotten, that Archbishop Lefevbre DID NOT WANT ANY OF THE BISHOPS TO BE SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE SOCIETY.

    I think anyone observing this situation, can now REALIZE WHY THIS WAS A GOOD POLICY! Fellay is taking advantage of his position as a bishop, and is wrongly trying to assert an authority over the other bishops, and through policies -he- is making without -their- input.  

    Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us.

    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #7 on: May 14, 2012, 11:26:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I think it's largely been forgotten, that Archbishop Lefevbre DID NOT WANT ANY OF THE BISHOPS TO BE SUPERIOR GENERAL OF THE SOCIETY.


    Well, it's not "forgotten" anymore, after that post!   :furtive:

    Curiously, ABL set up a 12-year term for the Superior General, AND it would be a priest, not a bishop. It seems to me that the term would not have been that long if a bishop were ever to be superior, maybe only 4 years, IMHO. But he left no provision for a bishop to be superior, and the reason was primarily to avoid the APPEARANCE of a parallel Church, for the bishop would take on the ambiance of a so-to-speak papal character.

    Certainly the power of the office would be a huge temptation for abuse ... here, here!

    BTW -- a lovely shot of OLGS.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Sede Catholic

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1306
    • Reputation: +1038/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #8 on: May 24, 2012, 02:20:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This, and the bizarre idea that internet Forums should not be running until after Pentecost (or whatever that strange notion was), is real evidence that they are trying to control some highly interesting infomation.  

    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #9 on: May 24, 2012, 02:41:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's a mortal sin to reveal the contents of confidential business or personal correspondence.

    It might not be convenient for some of you, but you can find this in any moral theology written before and after 1963.

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #10 on: May 24, 2012, 04:52:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augstine Baker
    It's a mortal sin to reveal the contents of confidential business or personal correspondence.

    It might not be convenient for some of you, but you can find this in any moral theology written before and after 1963.


    I am going to assume you were just told this and have not actually read every manual of theology, but I just went over a Jesuit Manual of Moral Theology from 1925 and the only part where correspondence is cited is in relation to secrets.

    Quote
    CHAPTER V
    ON SECRETS

    i. A SECRET is some hidden matter concerning another which
    cannot be made known without causing him injury or dis-
    pleasure. Besides the secret of the seal of confession, which
    is treated of elsewhere, divines distinguish three kinds of
    secret : the natural secret, the promised secret, and the secret
    which is communicated under an express or implied contract
    of secrecy.

    When we come to the knowledge of something concerning
    another which cannot be made known without causing him
    injury or displeasure we are under the obligation of a natural
    secret not to make it known. This obligation arises from
    charity and justice, inasmuch as these virtues forbid us to do
    anything to the hurt or annoyance of our neighbour.

    If we come to know something concerning our neighbour
    and then give a promise not to reveal it to others, we are
    bound by a promised secret. If the matter was of its nature
    secret, there would be the obligation of a natural secret inde-
    pendently of the promise. When the promise is given, a
    special obligation arising therefrom binds the party to secrecy.
    In case the matter was not of itself secret, the only obligation
    would be that arising from the promise. It depends to some
    extent on the intention of the promisor as to what obligation
    he takes upon himself by his promise. He may intend to
    bind himself to keep his word by the virtue of fidelity, because
    it is the duty of an honest man to keep his promise. In this
    case, as fidelity only binds under pain of venial sin, there will
    only be this obligation to observe the promised secret. How-
    ever, if the other party to whom secrecy was promised would
    suffer serious loss from the violation of the secret, or if the
    parties were bound by mutual promises, then justice would
    require the secret to be kept, and the violation of the obligation
    would of itself be gravely sinful. Apart even from these
    circumstances, the promisor may intend to give the other a
    right to secrecy in justice, and then he will be bound to observe
    it under pain of mortal sin.

    A secret which is confided to another under the condition

    394



    ON SECRETS

    that secrecy is to be observed constitutes the matter of an
    onerous contract and binds more strictly than either a natural
    or a promised secret. Such are secrets of office which officials
    of all sorts become aware of in the execution of the duties
    entrusted to them; professional secrets of doctors, lawyers,
    priests, and others, who are consulted as experts by people
    in doubt or difficulty ; as well as all others which are entrusted
    to any person under the express or implied condition of
    secrecy.

    2. The obligation to observe a natural secret will cease after
    the secret has become public property.
    The party whose
    secret it is may sometimes be reasonably presumed not to be
    unwilling that the matter should be communicated to another,
    as, for example, to somebody who can and who will be of
    assistance to him. If the public good requires that the secret
    should be made known in order to prevent public wrong,
    the obligation of secrecy will cease, for the public welfare is
    of greater importance than that of an individual. If serious
    harm threatens one's self or some other innocent person, or
    the party whose secret is in question, and the harm can only
    be averted by making known the secret, this will be allowed
    in the case of natural or promised secrets. The right of
    defence from impending evil prevails over that of natural and
    promised secrets.

    Even the obligation of the third class of secrets will cease
    when they cannot be observed without serious harm to the
    public weal.
    The natural law, however, which requires that
    people should be able to consult others in their difficulties in
    all security, demands that this class of secret should be observed
    in the case when even serious harm threatens some innocent
    person, unless he whose secret is in question is the cause of
    the impending evil. Thus, if I know as a professional secret
    who is the real culprit in the case of a crime wrongly imputed
    to an innocent person, I may disclose the real culprit if by
    some special means he caused the false accusation of the
    innocent person, otherwise I must keep the secret. It is a
    disputed point among theologians whether I am bound to
    observe a secret at the peril of my life when it was entrusted
    to me under that express condition, some maintaining that
    no one can pledge his life in that way, others more probably
    holding the contrary. Whether or not I am bound at my own
    serious loss to keep a secret entrusted to me under the con-
    dition of secrecy depends to some extent on circumstances.
    Sometimes I cannot be supposed under the circumstances to



    296 PRECEPTS OF THE DECALOGUE

    have bound myself by so strict an obligation; but as a rule
    professional secrets will continue to be binding even when
    the observance of them entails serious loss.

    3. We are bound to make known natural and promised
    secrets at the command of lawful superiors. The obligation
    of obedience to lawful authority prevails over that of secrecy
    due to individuals in those cases. And so a witness in a court
    of justice when lawfully questioned about what he knows
    under the obligation of natural or promised secrecy must give
    the evidence required. Similarly, secret impediments to
    marriage must be declared according to the precept contained
    in the proclamation of banns. Professional secrets, however,
    and, in general, secrets which belong to the third class, are
    privileged, and must not be declared, unless they have ceased
    to be binding for some such reason as those mentioned above.
    Secrecy in this case is demanded by the natural law, which
    gives the fullest possible security to those who consult others
    in their difficulties, and even the precept of one's superior
    cannot avail against the natural law, as St Thomas teaches. 1

    English law acknowledges the privilege of state secrets and
    of the professional secrets of lawyers, but in the case of doctors
    and clergymen it does not as yet go the full length of the
    doctrine laid down above.

    4. The doctrine with regard to secrets is applicable to the
    opening and reading of letters, unless it is known that they
    contain no secrets and the writer is not aggrieved.
    It is, how-
    ever, a general rule of Religious Orders that letters written by
    and to religious may be opened by the superior, except such
    as contain matters of conscience, and communications between
    higher superiors and their subjects.

    1 Summa, 2-2, q. 70, a. i, ad 2.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #11 on: May 24, 2012, 04:58:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • citation:

    Quote
    REV. THOMAS SLATER, SJ.

    VOL I.

    FIFTH AND REVISED EDITION



    LONDON

    BURNS OATES & WASHBOURNE LTD.

    PUBLISHERS TO THE HOLY SEE
    1925



    NIHIL OBSTAT: * / j

    H. DAVIS, SJ. i ' : v, 1

    IMPRIMI POTEST: ^
    GULIELMUS BODKIN, SJ.



    NIHIL OBSTAT:

    J. R. McKEE, C.O.,

    Censor deputatus.

    IMPRIMATUR:

    EDM. CAN. SURMONT,

    Vicarius generalis.



    WESTMONASTERII,

    Die i a Decentbris, 1924.



    Made and Printed in Great Britain

    Offline Pepsuber

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 170
    • Reputation: +50/-0
    Reprehensible circulation of bishops- exchange
    « Reply #12 on: May 24, 2012, 10:04:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Violation of epistolatory secrets takes place by opening and reading others' letters or by reading those already opened, but kept in a secret place.


    Jone/Adelman, Moral Theology, 382.

    Only the authorities (civil or religious -- in this case, the bishops' superiors in the SSPX or in the Church itself) have the right to open and read letters to guard the common welfare. In order for the original leaker to be excused from sin, he must have had the permission of Bp. Tissier, Bp. de Galarreta, Bp. Williamson, or their superior. Guarding the common welfare of the SSPX is no excuse as he (i.e., the leaker) does not have authority over the persons involved.

    These are clearly natural secrets (the revelation harms the Society's bishops as well as the SSPX itself), so their revelation is a grave sin. It doesn't matter whether one promised not to reveal the secret or not.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16