Posted on 07/12/2004 10:26:32 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Roman Catholic leaders in Austria called an emergency meeting today after officials discovered a vast cache of photos and videos allegedly depicting young priests having sex at a seminary.
About 40,000 photographs and an undisclosed number of films, including child pornography, were downloaded on computers at the seminary in St Poelten, about 50 miles west of Vienna, the respected news magazine Profil reported.
Officials with the local diocese declined to comment but were meeting privately on the scandal, Austrian state television reported.
It said the seminary’s director, the Rev Ulrich Kuechl, and his deputy, Wolfgang Rothe, had resigned.
The Austrian Bishops Conference issued a statement today pledging a full and swift investigation.
“Anything that has to do with homosexuality or pornography has no place at a seminary for priests,” it said.
Church officials discovered the material on a computer at the seminary, Profil said. It published several images purportedly showing young priests and their instructors kissing and fondling each other and engaging in orgies and sex games.
The child porn came mostly from web sites based in Poland, the magazine said.
Bishop Kurt Krenn, a conservative churchman who oversees the St Poelten Diocese, told Austrian television he had seen photos of seminary leaders in sexual situations with students. Krenn, however, dismissed the photos as “silly pranks” that “had nothing to do with homosexuality”.
A group of St. Poelten Diocese officials planned to ask the Vatican to remove Krenn as bishop, Austrian radio reported.
Vatican spokesman Ciro Benedettini told the Austria Press Agency that the Holy See had no comment.
Krenn, 68, issued a statement calling the accusations groundless while conceding that he “may have made some wrong personnel decisions” at the seminary.
First, you need to straighten-out the timeline here. When I referred to "they", I was speaking of Commission of Cardinals in Rome who made it abundantly clear they were out to "get" the Archbishop by hook or by crook and close-down his seminary at Econe. Michael Davies documents a meeting at which Cardinal Garrone presided where it was decided a canonical visit to the Econe would take place to evaluate the seminary. Michael Davies, in his Apologia, writes the following:
"At some time in June 1974, Pope Paul is alleged to have convoked the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals. While it cannot be claimed with certainty that this is untrue, it is certain that the document convoking the Commission has never been produced. As will be shown later, this document was one of the items which Mgr. Lefebvre's advocate would have demanded to see had not the Archbishop's appeal been blocked. It is not unreasonable to presume that one reason why the Archbishop was denied due legal process was that a number of serious irregularities would have been brought to light. It can hardly be a coincidence, in view of the criticisms aroused by the doubtful legality of the proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre...[N]ot one shred of evidence proving that the Pope had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop and his Seminary was produced until 29 June 1975. Pope Paul stated in a letter of this date, which is included in its chronological order, that he had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop in forma specifica (this term will also be explained under the same date). It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was an attempt to give retrospective legality to what must certainly be one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of the Church...
"The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary. However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord 's Resurrection.
"On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. 'This,' he said, 'was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.'
"In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity.
"In this Declaration, he stated:
"...we refuse...and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies...
"No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries."
Davies continues, "It is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the Commission of Cardinals subsequently stated that the Declaration 'seemed unacceptable to them on all points.'
"It is also important to note that this Declaration was not intended as a public statement, let alone as a Manifesto defying the Holy See. It was intended to be a private statement solely for the benefit of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X."
In fact, the Declaration was not only leaked, but it was edited, leaving out the Archbishop's profession of loyalty to the Pontiff! The effort was clearly an attempt to smear the Archbishop. Davies continues:
"It is particularly significant that the Commission of Cardinals persistently refused to view this Declaration in the context of its origin: as a private reaction of righteous indignation to the scandal occasioned by the views propagated by the two Apostolic Visitors who had been sent to Ecône by the Commission of Cardinals."
Yet it was on the basis of this declaration that the campaign against the Econe was launched. Davies says the following, regarding this:
"Examples of this preparatory stage of the offensive can be found in La Croix of 17, 18, 21,and 22 January and 1 February 1975. A change of tactics can be discerned from 8 February onwards, clearly resulting from a realization that proving the Archbishop wrong with regard to the legal position of the Mass would not be easy. From 8 February 1975, the charge against Ecône was one of a 'Refusal of the Council and the Pope.' Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration of 21 November 1974 was cited in order to try to justify this charge.
"The Commission of Cardinals met on 21 January 1975 to discuss the Report of the Apostolic Visitors. However, the Report of the Visitors (who seem to have been honest men though far from impeccably orthodox) was not only favorable to the Seminary but even flattering. It was therefore quite unusable as a basis for the condemnation of Ecône."
Instead, the Commission focused on the Archbishop. Davies cites Lefebvre: "After telling me of the favorable impression the Seminary had made on the Apostolic Visitors no further reference was made to the Society or to the Seminary either on 13 February or 3 March. It was exclusively a question of my Declaration of 21 November 1974, which had been made as a result of the Apostolic Visitation."
Davies continues, "In this connection, it is important to repeat that, in the opinion of most well-informed commentators, the action taken against Ecône by the Swiss bishops, in conjunction with Rome, had been instigated by the French hierarchy, with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, acting as its instrument.
"As Mgr. Lefebvre points out, the Apostolic Visitation was the first step towards the suppression of the Seminary. And this action was taken only after a prolonged press campaign in which the Seminary had been subjected to the most odious calumnies, which had been taken up first by the French bishops and then by the Swiss episcopate. One French Archbishop had indeed been reported as stating that he would have 'the scalp of the Seminary' before 1975 was out.
"But the most convincing evidence that the Commission of Cardinals was determined at all costs to close the Seminary was the fact that nothing more was heard of the Apostolic Visitation after its report was found to be favorable.
"In a letter dated 21 May 1975, accompanying his appeal which was lodged at the Apostolic Signature on 5 June, Mgr. Lefebvre demanded that, if there was anything in his Declaration which should be condemned, the Commission of Cardinals should condemn him personally rather than suppress the Society of St. Pius X, the Seminary, and the other houses which had been founded by the Society.
"The Archbishop has yet to be given one word from the Commission specifying anything in the Declaration which is alleged to deviate from orthodoxy. He insists that should such an allegation be made he must be tried by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the only tribunal competent to decide in such a matter.
"Certainly to close down the most flourishing and the most orthodox seminary in the West on the basis of alleged but unspecified unorthodoxy found in a single document is an unprecedented enormity. It is all the more outrageous, given the total inactivity (if not the connivance) of the Vatican concerning the travesty of the Catholic Faith and priestly formation that has for long been perpetrated in so many other seminaries, above all in French seminaries.
"Indeed, one would have to go to Soviet Russia to discover a comparable caricature of justice. But concerning even the worst travesties of justice behind the Iron Curtain, it can at least be said that they are not perpetrated in the name of Christ's Church, let alone during a Holy Year of Reconciliation!"
As to whether the homosexual abuse crisis occurred only after Vatican II as suggested by the cult of excommunicated Marcel, I had thought that SSPX regarded all forms of sin as having been non-existent from the Fall of Adam and Eve until Vatican II or perhaps the election of JP II.
BlackElk wakes up from hibernation and doesn't waste any time. Haven't noticed you around for a while, but you jump right into your usual routine. It's been a bit boring around here without someone to bring this sort of incisive logic to bear on the situation: "vipers" and "pigs." Well we can't say we haven't been warned.
To be fair, Christ himself was prone to use similar language. But in His case, it was always directed at those who glorified themselves for sticking to the letter of law, while entirely failing to grasp the supernatural reality behind it. Kind of reminds me of certain neo-Catholics who are fond of excommunicating all those who disagree with them, but don't seem to have much grasp of faith, hope or charity.
You presume too much. I have not only read the history, I've lived through it with eyes wide open. I have no intention of writing a comprehensive history of the "fall of communism" just to make the point. I stand by my original statement. While I do not dismiss the assertion that the Pope and the Vatican played some role, the Pope did not do it single-handedly as the original poster implied.
I never said Padre Pio was a kook.
Do you consider those who are against the New Mass kooks?
The more desperate you and your ilk become, the more vile the rhetoric. This comment truly illustrates your dark motives.
You say, "the questions you pose need [not] engage the attention of actual Catholics to the point of wasting time responding as though there were anything rational posted by you."
Then you go on for twenty paragraphs wasting time responding. You apparently don't know what it is you're saying. In fact, I knew the content of your screed even before I read it--which is too bad. Your posts used to be witty and informative. Now you only pile up insults and shed no light on any of the issues. That's fine with me, I can give as well as I get, but it doesn't advance anybody's knowledge about what's happening in the Church. This suggests a real lack of conviction on your part and an acknowledgement that the facts are not on your side. If they were, you would cite them. In fact, you can't--because the Pope himself never explains his actions. No theology was ever presented by Rome to justify its allowing Buddhists to pray at our altars--it was simply something the Pope wanted to do. No reason was given for elevating a heretic like Kasper, either. It sort of "just happened", as though elevating such men were a matter of course in the Catholic Church. Fine. But these are heterodox actions just the same--and leaves papal defenders helpless to explain them rationally. So they do what you do--hurl insults.
I worry that good Bishops who are trying to work with the dreck they walked into will be penalized and not be able to run their diocese as we seek to punish the offenders who came before them. Sorry.
or theology.
All are certainly post-Vatican II but we need to avoid the fallacy of "post hoc, propter hoc." Each is also a phenomenon which appeared after the discovery of the Galapagos Islands. Nonetheless, neither those islands, nor their turtles nor he discoverers of both had anything to do with Notre Flame, et al.
The remote explanation of all three of the admittedly execrable three examples which you cite is, of course, the misbehavior of Adam and Eve as to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and as to their obligation to OBEY. Without the Fall, there would have had to have been another source of concupiscence. More recently, the cause would be the refusal of Benedict XIV to continue the anti-Modernist efforts prescribed by Pope St. Pius X and the failure or refusal of each of Della Chiesa's papal successors to re-assert the campaign to exterminate the Modernist heresy as instututed by Pius X. Of course, Marcel the excommunicated patron "saint" of defiance, was excommunicated by John Paul II and not by Benedict XIV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI or John Paul I and so the schismatics regard JP II as the ultimate papal "criminal" in the history of the RCC. Lutherans are not fans of the pope who excommunicated Martin either and therefore exaggerate the importance of that pope. Nothing new here. Luther also claimed to be "reforming" the RCC but we all know better than to believe that. Likewise the SSPX are as rebellious and essentially dishonest in their claims to Catholicism as was Luther after he fell for the presumed charms of Sister Katy.
"I never said Padre Pio was a kook."
_________________
Deb, read your own post 98.
You said, "Padre Pio celebrated only one transitional Mass in the mid 60s. He broke down and wept."
I tried to explained to you that "if you had read anything about Padre Pio you would've known that during his Masses, which lasted 2-3 hours, he frequently broke into tears."
You try to turn one of my favorite Saints into some religious kook.
What's with this "Deb" business? Do I know you?
I'll ask again. Is anyone who is against the New Mass a kook?
"Do you consider those who are against the New Mass kooks?"
___________________
Yes, but only when they claim to be faithful Roman Catholics at the same time.
"I'll ask again. Is anyone who is against the New Mass a kook?"
_______________
That depends. See post 275.
So by your own admission YOU are labeling Padre Pio a kook.
He refused to celebrate the New Mass. Sorry, but that is historical fact. Interpret that as you will but you can't rewrite history.
This is a discussion forum governed by the owner and the moderators he chooses. There is a great lack of courage of conviction in anyone who claims that argument by others that one's Catholicism is defective amounts to abuse. That is certainly not the case. You want to advance the cause of attendance at schismatic Masses (allowed generously by the Vatican) which may well be appropriate in your geographical circumstances. If one's arguments begin to sink to a defense of the schism itself, then one has no argument cognizable within Roman Catholicism. It is NOT abuse to say so.
No one, to the best of my knowledge, hits abuse buttons on you. Do not forfeit your own hard-won reputation by hitting the abuse button on your critics. That you may be frustrated by those who do not accept your arguments is NO excuse for claiming abuse and no excuse for trying to have your critics silenced.
I have pinged JimRob because it is still his living room and therefore subject to his rule not yours or mine. We need elbow room here or the debate will wither, but it is JimRob's decision in any event. I do so in public and not behind anyone's back. I also do so with respect for Narses with whom I sometimes disagree but always respect.
"Sorry, but that is historical fact."
_____________________
Dear Deb, here are some historical facts to ponder:
The Second Vatican Council 1962-1965
Padre Pio's death - September 1968
Novus Ordo Missae Cum Populo - 1975
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.