How about this for a quote:

"... Neither will I condemn thee."

"..Judge Not, and you shall not be judged."

After you finish quoting half-sentences and half verses, what's next, Rabbi?  Using gematria to twist the Word of God?

Here is the whole sentence: "Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2

I am content to be judged by the same standard.  If I sodomize little boys or conceal the pederasty of others, I submit to the same standard of judgment, Rabbi.

Here is the other whole verse: "Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more." John 8:11

When we hear the priest accomplices' public admission, repentance, and plan for reparation and "sinning no more," the condemnation will end. We are not there yet, Rabbi.

Truly... and yet the trolls here pretend the problems are disconnected and so diffuse that the problems might as well be in "China." We have seen exactly this type of dissembling, obfuscation, and denial in the Novus Ordo.

The fish is rotting from the head down.

Sloniker was employed by Fr. Vassal at the ICC Camps and altar servers programs, as reported by the Spokan newspaper.

Populus was employed by Fr. Vassal at ICA as the janitor, as reported by a parishioner on the thread.

It seems Fr. Vassal has a poor track record for hiring Church/School staff who work around children.

Quote from: Matthew

Nothing should surprise you.

This does surprise me. I thought traditional Catholicism was a refuge from sodomy in general. To find out that a large number of supposedly good young boys are engaged is such horrible sins is a great surprise to me. If they were engaged in normal fornication with girls I wouldn't be so surprised, but this? This is the most surprised I have ever been in a very bad way in all my time as a traditional Catholic.

Sodomy has been a practice found among Catholics throughout the history of the Church. Even bishops and priests, perhaps especially bishops and priests have been guilty of it. The Church denounces it as mortally sinful and against nature, which it is, but mortal men will always be tempted to evil and the temptations are the strongest among those consecrated to God, as also they would be for baptized laymen.

We cannot be losing our Faith over this. Many times over the long years, people have told me that they were scandalized at this or that sin that traditional Catholics were involved in to the point of losing their Faith. I admit little patience with this attitude, especially from people who have been around tradition for any real time. It betrays a great deal of naivete in someone's makeup. And that is not the same thing as innocence. They have missed something in their studies of Church history and moral theology. There is no point using these scandals to show how bad the SSPX is, because there has never been a Catholic order or organization that has not been touched by these types of things in the best of times, and we happen to be living in the worst post-Christian times thus far seen. So, we can expect the temptations to be severe among those very few who are still trying to love God the way He taught and save their souls.

The Society must check out the backgrounds of all of those they hire to teach very thoroughly. Action needs to be taken against any priests or teachers who violate the trust of the school authorities and parents. One last point, over the years there have been too many teachers who have had strange ideas about which books to have children read probably stemming from their own worldy education. But what can we expect when the strange works of the likes of Flannery O'Connor, Percy Walker and Maria Valtorta are promoted as fit for youngsters in school or out?

Speaking of Bishop Williamson, he is questioning the latest rosary crusade and drumming up  "imaginary" fears as he calls them. I see no way that this rosary intention can be questioned. It is, in fact, what the resistance claimed they wanted for a rosary crusade intention.

To me it seems that the resistance is so anxious to criticize the SSPX that they shamelessly use the same types of things that have happened under tutelage of those former members, currently involved in the resistance, against the Society.

I agree with this quote:
"The involved priests must publicly admit, apologize unreservedly, accept corrective discipline and any due legal punishment. The SSPX must cease its "kill the messenger" approach to conflicts and unwelcome news. As befits parental primacy in guiding the education and safety of their children, with the advice and consent of parents the SSPX must implement procedures to address parental concerns about matters that impact on the education and safety of their children on SSPX premises, institutions, and camps.... etc."

And I suggest that the resistance may wish to put their own houses in order also. It is time for all of us to clean house.

How about this for a quote:

"... Neither will I condemn thee."

"..Judge Not, and you shall not be judged."

How about " Go and sin no more per Jesus?"

It is duty of every Catholic to admonish sinner.

from mailbag:

Quote

Correspondence has been received by us parishioners from Fr Wegner informing us of Fr Vassals resignation, with a letter also from Fr Vassal himself confirming that he is leaving, effective today.  We will be getting a new pastor, which is good!  

How was that correspondence received? Was a letter from Wegner reprinted in last Sunday's bulletin?  Or, were only certain parishioners informed?

Has Fr. Vassal's letter of resignation been shown to the entire congregation?  Did he actually "resign" of his own volition, or was he yanked by Menzingen for re-assignment elsewhere?

Why is getting a new pastor so good?  He may be another disappointment.  Hopefully, he doesn't have to learn English on the fly.

When we came to ICC in 2005, Fr. Emily was on his way out.  He had been driven out, we understood then, by prominent lay members in the chapel,who thought him  to be too morally rigid and unbending.  Is that really true or not?  We don't know to this day.

Emily was replaced by Swiss priest, Fr. Christian Grange, a hail fellow well met.  But was he really good for the situation?  Was he an effective "pastor?"  Well, I guess the jury is still out on that one, at least in our minds.

Of one thing we can be pretty certain. If +Fellay picked the new ICC pastor,  count on him being more of a loyal  servant (lackey?) to Menzingen, than a shepherd to the people.

A moral priest was driven out for being too moral? That is insane. The people that did such a thing should just go to the local novus ordo where their are no morals and they can do as they please.

I just want to make it painfully clear to everyone on CathInfo that the priests are not suspected or accused of anything, except bad judgement, deception, covering up the situation, and turning a blind eye.

EDIT: If there were another charge or two relatively close to that "list" of 4 charges, then that would be OK. That is to say, charges related to authority, prudent care of souls, justice, malfeasance, and the 8th commandment.

If I'm leaving something out, please PM me and I'll take it on a case-by-case basis.


If any posts have suggested otherwise, please let me know. My finger is hovering over the delete button.

I won't have gratuitous, unlikely or unfounded accusations made about any priest -- even one from the neo-SSPX.

Hollingsworth,

If you exclude a couple of posts that I had to delete this morning, then you'd be right!

If there were another charge or two relatively close to that "list" of 4 charges, then that would be OK. That is to say, charges related to authority, prudent care of souls, justice, malfeasance, and the 8th commandment.

If I'm leaving something out, please PM me and I'll take it on a case-by-case basis.

But this isn't open season on Fr. Vassal. And we're not going to take a page from the Freemasonic handbook and cast vague doubt on individuals. No hints, no vague suggestions, no vague character assassination. That's not how Catholics work.

When St. Paul withstood St. Peter to the face, he was specific about what St. Peter was doing wrong. He didn't hint that St. Peter was committing various random sins, or allow people to think whatever they wanted about St. Peter, as long as it was bad.

Let's just say I know media, I know communications, I know human nature, and I know how rumors get started.

I have to keep an eye on the conversation(s) to make sure everything stays within bounds (of Catholic morality). Now just to be clear: I'm not judging anyone: I'm only concerned with the OBJECTIVE consequences of a given statement. So just because I delete someone's post doesn't mean I'm accusing them of evil or mortal sin. It just means that, objectively speaking, I can't allow it for various reasons. Perhaps it was unintentionally misleading or confusing, or would lead most minds to misunderstand the actual situation. Perhaps it was 90% inclined to start a rumor.

Long story short, I insist that we stick to the facts, or as close to the facts as we can grasp from where we're standing.

That is the role of a moderator. And I take my responsibility very seriously.

Because it's a fact that when I allow measured criticism of a given priest, some member(s) will always take it too far. They consider the thread to be tacit permission for "open season" on Fr. Vassal, the SSPX, and/or the Catholic Church. No, no, and no. I am strictly allowing the truth about this scandal to get out, for the good of souls. THAT IS IT.

We're all Trads here, most of us believe that Vatican II was more or less illegitimate, false, and disastrous. But I've had to ban CathInfo members who thought this was a forum for all those against the Catholic Church -- for example, "Old Catholics" who believe the Crisis began with Vatican I. The Old Catholics are officially schismatic. They take our criticism of Vatican II as a cue to rail against the Catholic Church they already hate.

Thus gratuitous accusations, let alone slander, about Fr. Vassal, any other priest, any layman, the SSPX, or the Catholic Church are still as unwelcome as always.

I take criticism of a priest very seriously. And yes, it is to be kept well within the bounds of the SPECIAL EXCEPTION/PERMISSION I have given to allow this thread.

CathInfo is not "devil central", "rumor central" or "apostate central". That's what our enemies would like everyone to think. But it couldn't be further from the truth.