Fr. Euteneuer responds: Setting the Record Straight
#41
(02-02-2011, 03:39 PM)Magdalene Wrote:
(02-02-2011, 12:30 PM)Gerard Wrote: And the biggest ecclesial crime in the Church:

6) Questioning the numbers and methods of the Holocaust:  The Pope has you in his crosshairs, wants to separate you from your brother bishops, every secular critic and slob in the world is after you and the Pope piles on with the calumnies.  The  Holy See engages in Simony in order to extract a political retraction from you.   Almost complete isolation, secular authorities trump up charges against you, your superior  interferes with your secular defense of yourself and sets you up for a failure. 


Ok, so if we are done here trashing the reputation of Fr. Euteneuer, we just revert to trashing the Pope?  Saying he commits calumny?  And the Holy See is engaging in simony?  So it is fair game to accuse whoever we want of grave sin?

Revert to trashing the Pope?  That's a cheap shot.  The Pope gets more than a fair shake here, the fact that dreamy-eyed pope worshippers hate it when the reality sets in when he doesn't prove to be Christ Himself but someone who does flee for fear of the wolves and at times a wolf himself is considered "trashing" the Pope. 

No we don't accuse whomever we want of grave sin, the people who make it fair game are the people who do the deeds and then trumpet it.

The Pope's statements are public in a published book.  He's making money off of them. There are falsehoods in them.  The statements are public regarding the Simony.  It seems the fools at the Vatican are so corrupt they don't even see what they do as corrupt anymore. 
Reply
#42
For those of you playing along at home, making a mistake in the exact details of one bishop's (out of hundreds) career is the same as actively calumniating him. And the Pope didn't promise to promote anyone who had certain views, he said he might not have lifted the excommunication if he had known of HE Williamson's.
When His Holiness gets the facts wrong, it's calumny, when Gerard does, it's a sure sign of sanctity. Everyone get it now?
Reply
#43
(02-02-2011, 11:33 PM)Anastasia Wrote: For those of you playing along at home,

How ironic to start with this.  You don't have a clue.

Quote:making a mistake in the exact details of one bishop's (out of hundreds) career is the same as actively calumniating him.

Yeah.  I wrote it's either ignorance or maliciousness, we can't know that.  But it is still calumny, ignorance doesn't prevent it from being calumny. 

And it's not "making a mistake" it's a series of questions that were given ahead of time and published in multiple languages and went through all of the usual editing and proofreading stages. I guess simple fact checking wasn't important.  But according to Catholic morality, the Pope is still responsible for the damage done, and it's required of him to make amends even if it damages his own reputation. 

Quote:And the Pope didn't promise to promote anyone who had certain views, he said he might not have lifted the excommunication if he had known of HE Williamson's.

That alone is despicable but what also was said in early 2009 as a statement from the Curia was that Williamson had to distance himself from his views on a supposedly secular matter of history if he wanted to be considered for episcopal functions.  In essence, if he wanted to be considered for an office, he had to pay a price in terms of a political statement.  That is Simony, get over it. 


Quote:When His Holiness gets the facts wrong, it's calumny, when Gerard does, it's a sure sign of sanctity.

I don't publish books with falsehoods in them calumniating about people I don't know squat about. Especially when I'm lamenting the fact that a little research would have prevented embarassment. (That lesson sure was learned well. ) If I did write a book like that it that would be calumny.  And, if I was Pope it's obvious you would be kissing my rear thinking it's a wonderful thing. Because the Pope is immune from all obvious sins.  la la la lal al :) 


Quote:Everyone get it now?

Does everyone playing at home get how ignorant you are?  You don't know the facts, you don't even know the terms we are discussing here, but you just have to broadcast that ignorance and waste everyone's time.

Here's a little free advice. Do a little research before you trumpet your ignorance and make a fool of yourself.

Reply
#44
Calumny is a sin, which requires knowledge, so no. Simony requires an exchange of money for offices, so again no. But facts don't support your ideas, so let's just make stuff up!
Why I bother to respond I don't know since you are incapable of anything but name calling when someone defends the Pope. And you have to bring Williamson into every single solitary issue even one as unrelated as this is.
That said, no one but yourself actually pays the slightest attention to these silly delusions, so I'll bow out now.
Reply
#45
(02-03-2011, 12:20 AM)Anastasia Wrote: Calumny is a sin, which requires knowledge, so no.

You are wrong.  Again, I tell you, do some research.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03190c.htm

"In its more commonly accepted signification it means the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. The sin thus committed is in a general sense mortal, just as is detraction. It is hardly necessary, however, to observe that as in other breaches of the law the sin may be venial, either because of the trivial character of the subject-matter involved or because of insufficient deliberation in the making of the accusation."
Quote: Simony requires an exchange of money for offices, so again no.

Again, wrong. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm

"Simony is usually defined "a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of annexed unto spirituals". While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to a proposition condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger-Bannwart, no. 1195) it suffices that the determining motive of the action of one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other. The various temporal advantages which may be offered for a spiritual favour are, after Gregory the Great, usually divided in three classes. These are: (1) the munus a manu (material advantage), which comprises money, all movable and immovable property, and all rights appreciable in pecuniary value; (2) the munus a lingua (oral advantage) which includes oral commendation, public expressions of approval, moral support in high places; (3) the munus ab obsequio (homage) which consists in subserviency, the rendering of undue services, etc."


Quote:  But facts don't support your ideas, so let's just make stuff up!

No. Facts do support my positions. Deal with it.

Quote: Why I bother to respond I don't know since you are incapable of anything but name calling when someone defends the Pope.

You don't defend the Pope. You attack anyone who justly criticizes some lousy actions of his. You just get ticked off trying to defend the indefensible.

Quote:  And you have to bring Williamson into every single solitary issue even one as unrelated as this is.

Oh I'm sorry! I didn't realize that you are the judge of what I may or may not write about?  You're full of crap. And the fact that I mentioned what happened to Williamson is apt compared to Fr. E. and the kid gloves treatments given to liberals and perverts. Do you know what "apt" means? 

Quote: That said, no one but yourself actually pays the slightest attention to these silly delusions, so I'll bow out now.

Oh what a clever quip! So speaks the self-elected representative for all.  You know everything and speak for everybody. You should've bowed out from the beginning. 
Reply
#46
Good grief.  This thread is the first I heard of this.  Father Euteneuer recently spoke at a parish in my own diocese.  I knew about his involvement in exorcism, and whenever I thought about it, I wondered why he was doing them.  Something always seemed wrong about that.  He never struck me as the type of priest who could do them without getting tricked.  Honestly I have no idea why that thought always occurred to me.  It just did.

My prayers go out to him and his family.
Reply
#47
(02-02-2011, 12:37 PM)alaric Wrote: This uh, "non-sexual' moment, wasn't in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky variety was it?


(02-02-2011, 01:00 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The answer is: we don't know.

I can't believe that a statement like this is not only not be rebutted, it is being implicitly approved here.

Clinton's infamous "non-sex" was SODOMY.

We can MOST CERTAINLY know that when Fr. Euteneuer says the incident did NOT involve sex it CERTAINLY did NOT involve SODOMY.

Really the gossiping about the O'Toole trashy gossip columns and now this -- I have always expected better from this forum.
Reply
#48
(02-03-2011, 09:22 AM)KG Wrote:
(02-02-2011, 12:37 PM)alaric Wrote: This uh, "non-sexual' moment, wasn't in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky variety was it?


(02-02-2011, 01:00 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The answer is: we don't know.

I can't believe that a statement like this is not only not be rebutted, it is being implicitly approved here.

Clinton's infamous "non-sex" was SODOMY.

We can MOST CERTAINLY know that when Fr. Euteneuer says the incident did NOT involve sex it CERTAINLY did NOT involve SODOMY.

Really the gossiping about the O'Toole trashy gossip columns and now this -- I have always expected better from this forum.

You can be indignant, but the reality is we know what Fr. Euteneuer said, we don't know if it is the truth; same with O'Toole et al.  I don't know any of these people personally, and I have no reason to believe one over the other.

You can pick sides if you want; I'm pretty much siding with the Bishop's decisions - whatever else goes on in this - unless I find out he's covering up crimes and moving bad priests around.
Reply
#49
(02-03-2011, 09:27 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-03-2011, 09:22 AM)KG Wrote:
(02-02-2011, 12:37 PM)alaric Wrote: This uh, "non-sexual' moment, wasn't in the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky variety was it?


(02-02-2011, 01:00 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The answer is: we don't know.

I can't believe that a statement like this is not only not be rebutted, it is being implicitly approved here.

Clinton's infamous "non-sex" was SODOMY.

We can MOST CERTAINLY know that when Fr. Euteneuer says the incident did NOT involve sex it CERTAINLY did NOT involve SODOMY.

Really the gossiping about the O'Toole trashy gossip columns and now this -- I have always expected better from this forum.

You can be indignant, but the reality is we know what Fr. Euteneuer said, we don't know if it is the truth; same with O'Toole et al.   I don't know any of these people personally, and I have no reason to believe one over the other.

You can pick sides if you want; I'm pretty much siding with the Bishop's decisions - whatever else goes on in this - unless I find out he's covering up crimes and moving bad priests around.

It is most certainly not a case of taking sides.

It is simple decency.

Even a pagan, with some decency would see as much, let alone a properly formed Catholic.

When someone trots out a filthy accusation of SODOMY of all things with NOTHING to base it on a CATHOLIC does not implicitly endorse it by say that it could be possible. Especially a Catholic in authority in that particular situation.

You had handled other threads on this topic appropriately.

You blew this one.

The manly thing to do is admit it and correct it.

That's all I have to say.

You do as you will.
Reply
#50
He asked a question, and I answered it truthfully.  I don't know.  I'm not Fr. E, I'm not the woman in question, and I'm not the bishop holding the tribunal.  He did not say Fr. E was guilty of sodomy.  He was asking whether this could be some amelioration of what happened.  If I said "no", I would have been lying.  Likewise, if I had said "yes" I would have been lying as well.

Being a man to me means admitting I don't know what happened instead of blindly and emotionally taking sides because people like you demand I do.  Fr. E can defend himself, so can the bloggers.  A lot of people have made statements, and they need to defend them or shut up.

I'm defending my statement: I gave a truthful answer to a question.  I'm sorry you don't like that answer, but it's the truth.  I don't know, and unless you are Fr. E, the bishop, or the woman in question, you don't know either.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)