Church Militant : a purveyor of detraction and slander?
#61
(07-31-2019, 11:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Do you think Fr Perrone, whom CM defended when he was accused, is also guilty because he was accused of disturbing things?

I would like to hear her response to that question as well. The two cases are extremely similar. The major differences are the age and sex of the alleged victims and CM's reaction.


In Fr McLucas's case, the alleged victim was an adult female. In Fr Perrone's case, an under age male. CM's reaction? 'McLucas is guilty as hell, and we'll blacken his name as much as we can! Fr Perrone? He's as pure as the driven snow, and is being unjustly persecuted because he's a Trad!'
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#62
apparently extraneous
Reply
#63
(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: No, not because it "is disturbing". That would be a lame. It's because it RINGS TRUE.

So because you think the story sounds good, then it's clear Fr McLucas is certainly guilty.

Again, that's rash judgement. It's a sin. You're judging a man guilty based on accusations along which have no proof before anyone who has actually examined the evidence for or against the accusations. That's simply unjust, both to victim and accused.


(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: "McLucas has a history of bouncing around conservative Catholic circles without ever establishing a stable relationship with any particular organization."

That could describe most Traditional Catholics. At my parish the number of people who go back and forth between the FSSP, ICK and SSPX is legion. They refuse to establish a stable relationship with any particular organization. So they must be predators, too!

The nature of the Traditionalist world for priests means that often they do not find a stable place. I am very good friends with an FSSP priest who has been dumped alone in the middle of a diocese where all of the curia are practicing homosexuals, and out of nearly 100 priests in the diocese he and the SSPX priest are the only one that shows up to any of the pro-life events. It's a desert for him, he's always worried the bishop or his minions will clamp down and make his life hell. It's very unstable.

For a diocesan priest, often it's even worse, because traditionalist institutes except the SSPX are not happy to receive them without their own bishop's okay, and often if a priest is leaning traditional he's hacked off his bishop, and his bishop isn't going to be doing any favors for him.

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: The Perrone case does nothing to support your thesis that CM is mean to SSPX.

Of course it doesn't because your oracle Voris says Peronne is innocent, but McLucas is GUILTY!

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: There is only ONE accusation, a years-old repressed memory that just came out.

And with Fr McLucas there is only one accusation, and it's never been adjudicated, tested or proven. All we have is an accusation.

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: No one has seen any explanation whatsoever of what the allegation is. 

Which means that Fr Perrone was given more justice than Fr McLucas, who has a bare accusation against him that people like you are saying must be true because you feel it is and because he was accused. You make accusation plus your own subjective opinion into proof of guilt.

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: So while perhaps the "idea" of the allegation is disturbing, no one is able to guess if the accusation is credible, or judge how disturbing it is.

So by the exact same standard, since you have no means of objectively judging the McLucas case, it's a perfect parallel.

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: With Perone's history/lifestyle of an active priesthood involving constant and prolonged generous contact with his parish communities and with youth, he has had countless opportunities to indulge his perversion if he had it, yet no one has accused him (and predatory sexual behavior is serial). There is nothing alarming.

And yet at the same time the CM piece on McLucas and the SSPX was issued, Fr Perrone was also publicly tied to a secret charity which supported priests accused of sexual misconduct, and the press has made this look very bad.

(Aside : This charity might actually be doing a very charitible thing by giving support to bad priests so they have a place to live while dealing with what they have done, or those who are innocent, but their dioceses have abandoned, have somewhere to turn. Perhaps it has just been labeled wrongly and made to look very bad by the press, but see, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here, because there's only accusations and nothing proven.)

If accusations are enough, then it would seem Fr Perrone's lifestyle is actually not the spotless record you claim, and in fact is pro-abuser. Again, I have no way of judging this, but if we apply your own standard, Fr Perrone should be in jail because he was accused, there is a suggestion he may have been helping other abusers and there could be proof somewhere.

I don't think this, but I'm following your own illogic and emotionalism.

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: Also the Detroit Diocese handled it inappropriately, and like our sad American bishops in general, they have motivations for and a history of persecuting orthodox Catholic priests.

Seems the same could be said about Fr McLucas' case. Instead of letting him have his day in court and disprove the allegations (if he could), the diocese settled the case. That diocese also has a history of persecuting orthodox Catholic priests, so again, the only difference is that you don't like what you've read about the accusations in Fr McLucas' case.

(08-01-2019, 03:48 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: That's why Fr. Perrone looks innocent.  If more information comes out that make the repressed memory look credible, that will change things. Time will tell.

And hence, again, by the very standard you've enunciated here, you should give the same benefit to Fr McLucas. No evidence to support the accusations against Fr McLucas has come out. We have only the accusation. No proof. No investigations. No court decisions.

I really hope Eliza that you can see that you're not applying any objective reasoning here. You're applying emotions and judging what you have no right to judge. In doing so you risk serious sin and injustice.

Let's be clear here. None of us have claimed that Fr McLucas was certainly innocent. No one. Knowing the man personally for many years I'm happy to say I don't think he's the kind of person capable of what was described, but I'm also a realist who understands that every single one of us put in the right circumstances could do the most terrible things. So I'm the first to, despite the disconnect from the man I know, admit the possibility.

It could be true and the only we we would know is evidence. Speculation does not help us get any closer. Our own personal opinions also do not. Patterns we think we see. Labels we want to apply. Interpretations. None of it helps, because we have no establish facts which in any way verify or falsify the accusations.

I have said, if there was a trial (civil or ecclesiastical) which came to a decision and the evidence was shown, then, perhaps, we could make a decision. We would have tested facts, and the presumption could swing towards guilt. But even there there is a presumption only. Take the Cardinal Pell case and you see exactly why even a court case does not create absolute certainty.

You (and CM) are the only one speaking in absolutes : that Fr McLucas is absolutely without a shred of a doubt, guilty. The rest of us admit the possibility, and hope it is not true, but realize we cannot be certain, so in the face of that doubt do not presume his guilt.

You could claim the accusations are 100% true. I could claim they were 100% false and we would have no way to determine this. So, the Just thing to do is to steer the middle virtuous course : presume innocence until proof come.

You advocate that in Fr Perrone's case, and it is really only materially different than Fr McLucas', yet you want a totally different standard. That is not Just.
Reply
#64
Julie, over at Connecticut Catholic Corner, has a great analysis of this situation. The comments include a wealth of research into all of the details of what is actually know about the cases here.

Interestingly enough, Julie has absolutely zero connection with the SSPX, as is a fan of CM, but saw this whole debacle as very wrong.

If interested, Eliza, this is worth a read, especially the work in the comments by Judas Maccabeus.

CM also sent over an employee to defend themselves in the comments, and they do a terrible job of it. It's a pretty embarrassing reply which is taken to pieces by the commentators and left without further response from CM.

That, to me, speaks volumes.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#65
Nevermind
Reply
#66
(08-01-2019, 06:14 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Again, that's rash judgement. It's a sin. You're judging a man guilty based on accusations along which have no proof before anyone who has actually examined the evidence for or against the accusations. That's simply unjust, both to victim and accused.
No. It just RINGS TRUE. Exactly like I said. 
It is NOT a sin to discern the truth of a public document, nor is is a sin to offer one's discernment/opinion on a forum like this that offers and discusses opinions.
YES, I find the Fr. McLucas accusation HIGHLY CREDIBLE. I have seen it, and that is how I judged it.  And yes, I can't find anything to disagree with in CM's McLucas report so far.  
Quote:... Fr Perrone was also publicly tied to a secret charity which supported priests accused of sexual misconduct, and the press has made this look very bad.
I came across this info this week also, and it is very curious to me, but there was no place to find details to clarify anything, and it didn't seem to contribute to anything expressed in this thread, so I left it. 
But I am game to go off on this tangent, since you brought it up.
A curious fact is that one of the organization's secretaries has come out and reported she witnessed huge financial abuses happening in this organization. That is no surprise coming from a Catholic organization. But there is no way to find out where/if Perrone is connected to that issue at this point. It is a question. 

I also had thoughts on the "charitable thing" you mention here.  Because I found myself wondering what an organization full of such predators would be like. Rather sickening I think. If that sounds uncharitable, the fact is, these guys don't change their stripes. Of course, there is always a possibility of a miracle. But most of the time one has to repent! These guys are not wired to do that.  (Actually I can think of an example of a Miracle where repent was needed, but not asked for and did not happen. But that is another tangent). I understand that once a psychologist realizes they are dealing with a Narcissist, they tend to drop the client immediately. Because Narcissists aren't there to get better, they are there to manipulate the counselor. And they do it so well, as they savor any new challenge like that. 

Also, while there are many sick guilty priests around, there are also some falsely-accused innocent ones. With normal personalities. Being sent to that place would be a sort of hell, akin to the psych wards our sicko bishops like to order orthodox priests to. 

What would a compound of these guys look like? Do they live in community? Or do they have little individual cabins/homes like this sort of place McLucas lived (address on Court Documents) during his alleged nefarious goings-on?:
[Image: streetview?channel=pdp-publicrecord&loca...YbmBSC77c=]

Because group living with these guys would be bizarre. A bunch of guys trying to out-manipulate each other. They need to be outnumbered by normal people, who know exactly how this type of mind works. 
So I examined these thoughts about this organization in terms of charity, and concluded that if one worked among these you would have to imagine and have constant awareness and pity for their guardian angels, who work so hard for their person's good, and need out help. 

Quote:I don't think this, but I'm following your own illogic and emotionalism.

Well, I would hope not! And I realize my logic doesn't connect with you. 
I thank God for the gift of emotions, which by the grace of God, often serve me well. 

Re: McLUcas:  Predators are EXPERT at manipulating their public image, at manipulating all persons in their scope, and at presenting themselves well. Think of when murderers and rapists get exposed, and close associates say, "I had never dreamed it possible of him; he was such a nice man!" Look at McCarrick! Such a likable and upstanding persona! One reason for the dichotomy is such sickos have to try harder and become polished experts with their public image, because there is such rot inside to cover. (You must admit, if the McLucas' allegations are true, this would be the case).

Magister, is it your charism to have an intuitive grasp of the inner life and motives of a person?  My guess is you have different gifts. I can see you are an intelligent, well-spoken and thinking person. And also I am supposing that you lack a woman's intuition.

Quote:It could be true and the only we would know is evidence. Speculation does not help us get any closer. Our own personal opinions also do not. Patterns we think we see. Labels we want to apply. Interpretations. None of it helps, because we have no....
Speculation, opinions, patterns - it all helps me. Different strokes for different folks.

Quote:I have said, if there was a trial (civil or ecclesiastical) which came to a decision and the evidence was shown, then, perhaps, we could make a decision. ... But even there there is a presumption only. ...

And as I have said, I do not need a trial results to give me permission to use my brain with the facts at hand.  We have different approaches here.

Magister, this thought has come to mind often in this thread:  When you presume innocence of McLucas, you, by default, presume guilt of his victim, and of her lawyers, without trial in a court of law. That is not just.
[-] The following 1 user Likes St.Eliza's post:
  • traveler
Reply
#67
(08-01-2019, 07:36 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: Wow. My husband and I watched a CM video and this one came after it. So I just had to come here on this thread and say that, after listening to this, I now understand some of what is behind the previously puzzling "CM is out to get SSPX" theme here. The McLucas issue really is a weak aside.

The issues discussed in that video, far, far more than any cautions that arose while reading this thread, are the actual sorts of things that have kept me away from looking seriously at SSPX. Even though SSPX is attractive, with wonderful orthodoxy and nice like-minded people.

I am not well-informed about and have not been reflective enough about SSPX to offer useful comment about them.  I am much more informed, and have been reflective, over much time, about CM.  But I don't think anyone here is looking for input about CM.

Except that video is a parody of the real situation.

Society priests have ordinary jurisdiction for confessions directly from the Pope himself.

Society priests in most places have been given delegations by the local bishop to witness marriages.

Society priests are allowed to use diocesan churches in many places. I myself attended a pilgrimage to Lourdes a number of years ago where the local bishop gave the SSPX use for three days of the Basilica of St Pius X and nearly 20,000 people came for the pilgrimage from all over the world. They were put on the official shrine calendar and given permission on the Feast of Christ the King to process with the Blessed Sacrament throughout the entire city.

I have personally attended Masses of Society priests in St Peter's Basilica.

A good friend of mine who is a Society priest was given use of a diocesan Church by the late Bishop Morlino for his First Solemn Mass near his home, and the bishop said he could use any church he liked and warmly supported him.

I know of local bishops who have invited Society priests to preach priest retreats for their dioceses.

The Pope also gave the SSPX bishops the permission to ordain candidates without permission from the local bishops, meaning the priests are under no canonical sanction anymore.

The only issue is with a canonical recognition. Everyone gets their pants ruffled about 1988. That's not the issue with the Society. It relates to 1976. 

It was that year that the SSPX was "suppressed". A visitor from Rome came to the seminary and acted very scandalously, so Archbishop Lefebvre gave a spiritual conference to reassure his seminarians that he would not be accepting those deviations preached by the visitor. A journalist leaked it, and a few Cardinals, claiming they had the authority of the Pope condemned the whole Society for that spiritual conference and said that the local bishop could suppress them (which is illegal). Archbishop Lefebvre appealed, but the appeal was never heard. Under Canon Law it is suspensive. That means that it suspends the decree's actions. Thus the Society says they still validly exist as approved in 1970. The Holy See does not recognize them as such, but neither have they ruled the suspension valid.

The CM report is highly inaccurate, but again, that's normal for them as regards the SSPX. Ever since the cash infusion by the big FSSP donor, they have been on the attack towards the SSPX, when the Church Herself has taken a very warm tone, granting faculties, permissions.

Never has the Holy See declared the Society in schism, yet CM and Voris love that term.

The Fr McLucas slander is just the tip of the iceberg, but the nastiest of them so far. It and their glowing defense of Fr Perrone even in the face of his link to employing other abusive priests, shows that bias. 

Again, there may be an explanation for Fr Perrone, and perhaps bad people are just piling on, but the double-standard could not be more clear. It does not take a pro-SSPX person to say that. The vast majority of the Traditional Catholic movement online has sided against CM.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • MagdalenaRita, TheQueenMother
Reply
#68
(08-01-2019, 10:19 PM)St.Eliza Wrote: Magister, this thought has come to mind often in this thread:  When you presume innocence of McLucas, you, by default, presume guilt of his victim, and of her lawyers, without trial in a court of law. That is not just.

I have never done so Eliza, and for you to suggest this is offensive and uncharitible.

Shame on you.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • piscis, TheQueenMother
Reply
#69
extraneous info
Reply
#70
Mary Rose's story is story here, https://www.maryrosemaher.com/about-me and yes, her story sounds credible and to me. How sad, she has to refer to her father by his name instead of "Dad", but truly he was no Dad. :(  Having seen this [I mistakenly thought before that there were not details to be found describing Perrone's allegations], my opinion is the accusations against Perrone as serious serial abuser look credible.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)