How is the situation with the SSPX going?
#41
(05-25-2020, 04:37 AM)Dave01 Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 03:53 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Again:


Quote:The testimonial evidence of three parents of abused boys should not be confused with the credibility of CM.  Are you then saying those parents are not to be believed?
To hear the testimony of the parents of the abused children click here:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...-good-liar

Simply repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make your information any more relevant, or make the concerns about its legitimacy disappear.

It's especially ironic that you continue to repeat yourself, since I will now need to repeat myself in replying to you. 
Quote:
I repeat myself because you speak in generalities and did not speak directly to the testimony of the abused boys parents except to excuse it as hearsay with your own imaginary story contradicting theirs.


Anyways, I did watch it, and it was what informed my previous points. Again:


  • The evidence from the parents is OBVIOUSLY being framed and presented by CM. This doesn't make it wrong, but it would be also wrong to treat this as if it was some objective 3rd party report from an uninterested party. 
Quote:In what way is their testimony being framed?

Of course the testimony of the parents won't be a disinterested third party since they are the ones damaged in the case.  Their testimony will be biased regardless of who interviews them.  It is also very believable and reliable and backed up with documents from Fellay himself.

  • Within the first 30 seconds of the video, we have another CM misrepresentation - "Fr. Abbet remains free in the town of Fully, even goes to the swimming pool, a convicted child abuser, etc.", obviously giving the impression that he still works with the FSSPX, or that the FSSPX helped him escape, none of which is the case. As far as I can see, he is completely out of the SSPX, they don't even have a Mission in the same town at all, etc., and he fled from justice completely of his own accord. 
Quote:It never said that the priest still works with the SSPX, but it is clear that the SSPX failed in turning this priest in to the authorities making sure he is detained so as to avoid other children from being hurt both while he worked with them and after.

  • Even taking the evidence at face value, there are still other possibilities and conclusions which can be drawn from it, as I alluded to previously. 
  • If certain members of the SSPX are guilty of criminal acts, then charge them for it, and when convicted, I will be the first to support their expulsion or other punishment from the Society. Absent of such convictions though, I would treat this evidence as hearsay, especially considering the absence of similarly documented cases. 
Quote:Apparently, the accused have a way of slipping through the cracks in the hands of the SSPX and the abused become victims once again as the SSPX regard their cases as a "discreet amount" or they are disregarded as "hearsay".

For the last time: A single, seemingly (somewhat) legitimate case, brought by an agenda-driven 3rd party, is not going to cause me to entirely re-evaluate my opinion of a Society with 50 years of history, and thousands of priests and seminarians (the vast majority of which are rejected for ordination, I might add, which would be odd for a Society dedicated to inflating its numbers and protecting questionable priests) who have passed through its doors.
Quote:[quote pid='1421231' dateline='1590395873']
As I have said elsewhere, it shouldn't cast aspersions against the whole order or their followers and it's wrong for CM to imply that.  It should however be a cry for justice and everyone who really cares about the future of the order and the preservation of the safety of children and the TLM and tradition should be calling out for full disclosure and explanation as to why this priest was allowed to have access to children by Fellay who abridged the court's decision to keep him away from children and the internet for 10 years.  Clearly Fellay felt he was above the law and personally put those boys in danger and should be held accountable for his actions.  Again, let's look at the specifics rather than generalities.

[/quote]
To hear the testimony of the parents of the abused children click here:

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...-good-liar
Reply
#42
(05-25-2020, 04:56 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Clearly Fellay felt he was above the law and personally put those boys in danger and should be held accountable for his actions.

If the CM report is true this statement is detraction. If false its calumny. Either way its sacrilege.

SHL, stop this and get to confession. You are risking your soul.

Your indignation, rightly or wrongly placed, is not worth your eternal soul.
Reply
#43
(05-25-2020, 05:09 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 04:56 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Clearly Fellay felt he was above the law and personally put those boys in danger and should be held accountable for his actions.

If the CM report is true this statement is detraction. If false its calumny. Either way its sacrilege.

SHL, stop this and get to confession. You are risking your soul.

Your indignation, rightly or wrongly placed, is not worth your eternal soul.

This is a common tactic I have heard the witnesses and abused victims of the SSPX share were used against them when they tried to speak out and get help within the ranks.

It's interesting how calumny, detraction etc. only applies when evidence against the SSPX is evaluated.  Apparently it doesn't apply when evaluating the evidence against Fr. Rizzo or CM or the abused or their parents.

This tactic was also militantly applied in the Legionaire's of Christ with their "vow of silence" and worked very well to cover up crimes for decades and aid and abet the monster Marciel Maciel.
Reply
#44
(05-25-2020, 05:23 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 05:09 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(05-25-2020, 04:56 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Clearly Fellay felt he was above the law and personally put those boys in danger and should be held accountable for his actions.

If the CM report is true this statement is detraction. If false its calumny. Either way its sacrilege.

SHL, stop this and get to confession. You are risking your soul.

Your indignation, rightly or wrongly placed, is not worth your eternal soul.

This is a common tactic I have heard the witnesses and abused victims of the SSPX share were used against them when they tried to speak out and get help within the ranks.

It's interesting how calumny, detraction etc. only applies when evidence against the SSPX is evaluated.  Apparently it doesn't apply when evaluating the evidence against Fr. Rizzo or CM or the abused or their parents.

This tactic was also militantly applied in the Legionaire's of Christ with their "vow of silence" and worked very well to cover up crimes for decades and aid and abet the monster Marciel Maciel.


Not two post above you decried "generalities". Now you paint with a broad brush, suggesting that I'm just as wicked as Maciel. Do you not see this? 

Fr Rizzo and CM have made public claims. These are able to be evaluated on their own merits. I've only cited publicly available materials from Rizzo and CM, that they have shared. CMs materials are provably false in many respects and they refuse to correct, calling anyone who questions them a facilitator of child abuse...just like you are suggesting.

Fr Rizzo's own story is a mashup of detraction and self-admitted desires to "save" people from St Marys.

Yet you have one claim from CM against a bishop who has not been able to give you his side of the story or defend himself, and yet you can claim to know what he was thinking. You know he felt himself "above the law". You have extremely limited evidence and yet...generalization.

What would Fr Ripperger say? I recall you're endeared to him as the guru of all things Catholic. I seem to remember very harsh words for the sins of the tongue, which is exactly what we're seeing played out in your emotionalism here.

You need some prayers and sacrifice, because you're clearly not seeing straight here. I'll be the first to step back and pray. But if you don't step back yourself then I can only suggest to the moderators here to give you a break for your own peace of soul.
Reply
#45
(05-25-2020, 06:28 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:  I can only suggest to the moderators here to give you a break for your own peace of soul.

Agreed. SHL, take a two week break to consider what you're doing.
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 also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#46
I genuinely wonder how people, particularly parents with children, have the free time to go through all of this garbage and still really be fulfilling their duties of state and attending to their families. All that wasted time that could have been spent focusing on raising our children and rooting out our disordered curiosity! Prayers for all.
[-] The following 2 users Like piscis's post:
  • Justin Tertius, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#47
(05-25-2020, 06:28 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Fr Rizzo and CM have made public claims. These are able to be evaluated on their own merits.

For the sake of a completeness, and since quite serious claims were made by SHL and Fr Rizzo via the article posted earlier which have not gone challenged, I think it necessary to at least point out one serious flaw in the claims.

I'm not looking to destroy Fr Rizzo, nor would I say that there are not some questions that have been raised about the SSPX and some of the actions of some persons in the leadership.

My take : it's not really our duty to sort through this mess. Criminal matters are for the police, and ecclesiastical matters are for the superiors to adjudicate. We have to worry about our soul.

Unless there is some immediate, direct and concrete harm threatening a particular soul unless such matters be revealed, they should simply be entrusted to the appropriate authority. They should not be aired publicly unless there is no other recourse possible, and then only to the extent necessary to prompt a real solution. None of us are owed the whole story, nor competent to make a determination.

That said, public claims were made by Fr Rizzo through SHL's post of a Fidelity article. The matter is public and the claims are. There are issues here with these claims, and in justice to those accused issues with such claims need to be pointed out. Public evidence undermines at least some claims.

I freely admit this has nothing directly to do with the Abbet case, but it does go to the credibility and objectivity, and therefore the veracity of the claims CM has published and also the claims of Fr Rizzo against Fr Anglès and the SSPX.

Some of what he claimed may be true, some may be false, but when it's all mixed together and only selective investigation and details shared, to make a judgement on this is precisely sinful rash judgement.

So, the question on Rizzo's story: In the above materials posted, Fr Rizzo claims that the police came to the St Mary's bank to warn him that SSPX parishioners had formed a militia to kill him. The police said, according to Rizzo, that they were helpless to stop them.

To support this accusation he later suggest that he was indeed the target of potentially lethal violence, as the house he was staying in was shot up, and a bullet even hit his pillow. Fortunately, he was out of town saying Mass.

An article from the local St Mary's paper, The St Marys Star, "Drive-By Shooting Subject Arrested" (Nov 16, 1993), discusses this incident. It identifies Fr Rizzo's house as the subject of this drive-by, and confirms many details. It also says that the incident was gang-related. The local Crips leader, Patrick Martin, was arrested for this drive-by in Belvue, which occurred as Rizzo claims on Oct 24, 1993.

The claim of Rizzo in the Fidelity article cited above was that the bullets were from a .22-caliber gun. In fact this was incorrect. It was actually a .25-caliber ACP according to the St Mary's Star and county sheriff.

There is reason to think that perhaps there is not merely mistake here, however. A .22 could be a very low-powered handgun or a much higher power rifle. A .25 ACP is only a small weapon, which cannot penetrate more than about 1-2" of wood or soft material and will not penetrate metal, except very thin metal. After passing through a wall it would certainly be sub-lethal in most cases. Through a window, perhaps not. Claiming a .22 without qualification could make the story sounds like someone with a rifle shot up the place. Claiming a .25 ACP means it was not likely intended to be lethal. A .25 ACP is a tiny pistol, only slightly larger than a Derringer (one of those ankle holster guns).

So there is at least a question on this accuracy, but possibly it was just a mistake, though there is also the possibility of embellishment.

Why was Fr Rizzo's house the target? Well the gang connection does suggest that it was the young man staying with him (confirmed by a friend who lived in St Mary's at the time, whom I know and who knows this then-young man), who was involved with the gang, had recently tried to leave it (hence why he was staying with Fr Rizzo), who reported the shooting. He was the target. It was not Fr Rizzo.

Now, does this establish that Fr Rizzo was not maligned or that the rest of his claims are not true? No.

What it does do is show that Fr Rizzo, when giving the Fidelity interview in 1995 knew that this shooting had nothing to do with the SSPX faithful and yet he seems to have intentionally tried to associate it with the SSPX faithful to malign them for his perceived mistreatment. He knew it was gang-related and related to the young man who was living with him and had nothing to do with the SSPX or Fr Anglès (unless Anglès was also part of the Crips).

The point : we cannot just accept one piece of testimony as undeniably true and providing enough data for judgement without evaluating all the claims and getting all of the evidence. We're, simply, incapable of this, which is why we rely on investigative agencies who are not biased to sort out things, and if necessary prosecute crimes.

So, are there serious questions? Absolutely.

Can we just repeat this stuff over and over when the source is someone who clearly has a motive to bias the reporting, as if accusation = evidence?

No. That is the definition of rash judgement, which is a sin. When this rash judgement is used as the basis for an accusation it is either detraction or calumny. Such sins do not obtain real justice.

My hope in all of this is that if there are real problems then the SSPX will implement some real procedures to deal with them, and also do what can be done to those who have acted badly. My hope is that if crimes were perpetrated, that these perpetrators will be justly punished. My hope is that in any case, if people have done wrong, they confess, and obtain absolution and undertake appropriate reparation for their sins.

Sadly, I do not detect that this is the desire of CM or many of those who have joined that pitchfork and torch-bearing crowd. I see only a desire to set anything they see on fire, whether it deserves to be punished or not.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Ioannes_L, jovan66102, Quickbeam
Reply
#48
I must chalk this up to the lockdown. Tempers seem thin. There have been some uncharitable things said about CM, and nobody breathed a word about detraction and calumny, while on the other hand Bishop Fellay, much as I have admired his actions in the past, has become some kind of sacred cow. It's unlikely that either position reflects reality--if this rises to the level of banning, many of us deserve it, whether we are actually banned or not.

MagisterMusicae has said it: it's not really our duty to sort through the mess. I must presume the best until demonstrated otherwise. Thanks be to God!
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)