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.
"Insofar as I was the choirmaster for the authorized Tridentine in Milwaukee for over 10 years, I am CERTAIN that I am not a part of "this crowd."
Notice, I use the word authorized."
A bishop does not have the power to "authorize" the use of a Mass which has already been granted to all the faithful by his superior. Another mistake made to make those who attend the "Traditional Latin Mass" feel somehow guilty about not attending the NO, and bishops wield this supposed power to suppress the Mass.
Please document yor assertion that the Pope can change the Bible.
YOU claim, indirectly, that your knowledge of Aramaic is of sufficient credential to declare that the NO is void.
You and the Lutheran creators of the Bogus Ordo claim that Sacred Scripture is incorrect. I think I'm in better company.
Does that go for Pope Saint Pius V or does that just go for popes who kiss the Koran, the ring of the Archbishop of Canterbury and wear the mark of Shiva?
As to your prognistication about the 'last Pope of these Catholic times,' that's a bit vague. Perhaps you can explicate.
Those are not my words, but apparantly are those of Our Lady as communicated to JPII. It is understood that he has received "communication", and had teh Fatima vision - personally - in the skies above Rome, as he lay in Gemelli hospital revoereing from the assassination attempt. It is both a figurative and a real statement. I will explain more privately.
You're talking crap again.
You just can't get past the fact that all we're doing is worshipping exactly as has always been done by Catholics. We're nothing like Luther who made up entire new doctrines out of whole cloth.
What we follow is several thousand years of developed protocol, ethos and doctrine, not a halfway good-looking woman or our own notions regarding God, faith and Christianity, as did Luther the heretic.
You can keep bleating, but your attempts to marginalize us are falling flat because you have an intellectual hernia. Your arguments only serve to convince the hopelessly st00pit, possibly not even them.
Deacon sinkspur apologized, why are you trying to stir the pot? Where I attend Mass is IN NO WAY relevant to this thread. Period.
“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.”
Not abuse? Well, I was suspended for three days by the Admin Moderator for saying that Sinkspur is “under the sway of Satan.” The Admin Moderator misrepresented that as “calling another poster Satan,” and refused to discuss it.
It would appear that “abuse” is defined as anything the moderators don’t like.
What next? If I say to Sinkspur, “Altar girls are a liturgical abuse,” will I see “Banned. Reason: don’t call other posters swine”?
I understand that FR is Jim Robinson’s private property and he can run it as he likes. However, if the way he runs it is that moderators can suspend people on the basis of false accusations then refuse to discuss it, it’s going to take a lot of the fun out of it.
And I have seen the Mods remove posts for "racist comments" when the posts only criticized Islam. I wonder why they have moderators who cannot tell the difference between a race and a religion. I have been told that what it is all about is offending those who have purchased influence.
I wonder.
Some posters seem immune.
"why he opposed Archbishop Lefebvre so forcefully for defending the traditional Mass and the traditional priesthood"
____________________
Archbishop Lefebvre was told not to pursue with new ordinations for the time of Vatican's investigation. But he was much like you, he knew better than the Pope. So he got exactly what he asked for.
"good post"
_________________
You mean "good for UR" or just "good"?
The delusions, deceptions and dishonesties are those of the modernist revolution, not of the SSPX. You yourself are buying into lies, not truth, when you excoriate innocent men who oppose Modernism.
For myself, there's no other choice but to side with the SSPX. Either that, or I would be forced to concede that it makes no sense, that Catholicism itself is false--Trent, the preconciliar popes, all of it. This is because the two versions of Catholicism, Modernism and Tradition, are mutually exclusive. The SSPX sides with Trent and Tradition. Rome stands with the revolution. Rome is either on a false path--or the Catholic religion as it has been taught and practiced for two thousand years is false. If the latter is true, then why bother with any of it?
Careful. "Invalid" is a FAR CRY from "illicit."
You have described illicit matter, which does NOT make for an invalid Mass.
My bad. The Old Rite Mass at which I assisted for 10 years was the LICIT one, as opposed to the SSPX Mass offered about 10 miles distant.
I'm sure you understand the difference.
No, your interpretation is simplistic. The Pope wished to wipe out Traditional Catholicism by starving it of traditional priests--which meant denying the Archbishop the right to ordain traditional bishops. Only bishops, after all, can ordain priests. If traditionalism had no bishops--the Archbishop himself was 82 years old and ailing and there were no longer any other traditional seminaries anywhere--who would ordain traditional priests? And without such priests, how could traditional Catholicism survive? So the stakes were far higher than you suppose. The whole of Catholic Tradition was at stake. The Archbishop was obliged to disobey--in order to save the Catholic faith.
What's more he was covered by Canon Law itself, which the Pope failed to mention in his motu proprio. Canon 1323 specifically excepted from punishment anyone who acted out of a state of necessity. The Archbishop evoked this law--properly and legally. What's more, still another canon provided that even if the individual were MISTAKEN about such a state, the penalty would not be incurred. As long as the individual sincerely believed there was an emergency, no penalty could be incurred. So the Archbishop was innocent--despite what the Pope said. There was no excommunication--and there certainly was no schism. And remember--Canon Law itself is the Pope's own law. It is a far more important document than the Ecclesia Dei letter.
Done. About 49.5% Bush.
I think you misunderstand this. In the Latin Rite, leavened bread would be "illicit" because the rubrics require unleavened bread, even though leavened bread would be valid. So you are breaking the rules (making it illicit) but you still have matter that is capable of being transubstantiated.
You could compare it to ordination where the valid matter is a male baptized Catholic. A homosexual would be illicit matter for the sacrament, since the rules say not to ordain homosexuals, but he would still be a candidate for a valid ordination. A woman, on the other hand, is simply incapable of being ordained.
Back to the bread and wine. Any "substantial" amount of ingredients other than wheat flour and water make the matter invalid, not simply illicit. In order to become the body of Christ, it first must be wheat bread with no additives. A very small amount of other ingredients would be merely illicit, since the matter could still be reasonably described as "pure wheat bread," but a noticeable amount of any other ingredients would make the matter invalid. This would include oats, barley, eggs, honey, molasses, chocolate, salt, sugar, etc.
"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."
____________________
That would make Klaus Gamber and Cardinal Ratzinger kooks.
I don't particularly care what Msgr. Perl has to say. I use his words to deal with the ignorant--people like yourself who confuse the Vatican with the Godhead. You said a moment ago you could not waste time reading a lengthy post. Too bad--since the truth doesn't always come in sound bites--nor from glib comments in a papal motu proprio written out of pique. There's a history of modernist persecution of traditional Catholicism you need to know about before you charge off in all directions. In fact, the opposite of what you suppose is true: the very people you condemn are the only ones holding onto what the apostles have transmitted. Which is sad, since this used to be the primary job of popes. But JPII is too busy writing poetry--when he isn't apologizing for something or schmoozing with Buddhists.
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.