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.
Your posts are getting more and more strident. You claim you don't need to pay good money to see Fahrenheit 9/11 to know it is false, as if that had anything to do with papal declarations regarding SSPX. Just the contrary is true! It has always been the Church's position to give reasons for its disciplinary actions. If it doesn't, especially in today's politicized climate within the Church, it should rightfully be held suspect. No wonder so many are siding with the Society. It has truth on its side--whereas the Vatican has bombast such as yours.
The pope has supreme power in the Church and must exercise it justly. You assume that because a man has the lofty title of Vicar of Christ, he is therefore a just man. I do not make such an assumption--because I know the opposite is sometimes true. In particular the injustice of JPII is easily proven to anybody willing to learn the facts. You don't wish to read about these facts. Fine--but don't complain if I think that's incredibly narrow-minded, because it is. You make a fetish of your own ignorance and obedience and confuse that with moral virtue. I find this laughable.
Your third and much more salutary alternative is to admit that you are wrong, repent as publicly as you have attacked JP II, do any penance required, concede quite publicly that Marcel was wrong, that the schism is indeed a schism and always has been, and return to the Roman Catholic Church, submit to the legitimate authority of the Holy Father and cease your campaign of vilification against him.
1. What were the precise Aramaic words?
2. How do you know?
3. Translate into literate Aramaic: "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."
I can't answer any of those but I concede that I am not an expert of any sort on Aramaic.
C'mon. Strut your stuff!
My statements as to Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 are my opinions. JP II's Ecclesia Dei excommunicating your heroes and declaring your movement schismatic is not mere opinion. That document is authoritative unlike any of yours or mine or of dead and excommunicated Marcel or of excommunicated Fellay or excommunicated Williamson for that matter.
Your opinion as to whether JP II is just or not is irrelevant. I happen to think he was far, far too charitable toward this nasty little schism. That's my opinion and it is not relevant either. JP II's opinion is relevant. God's opinion of JP II is quite relevant. Fact or fantasy, you have nothing to say to well-catechized Catholics. That you are in a permanent hissy-fit against His Holiness and against papal authority does not command my allegiance to your curious grab bag of schismatic opinions.
You are owed NOTHING by His Holiness, whatever it may please you to imagine. Ecclesia Dei is what you earned and what you deserved.
Next, Marcel acted to massacre his vows of obedience and that has no place in Catholic tradition. He paid the price.
Next, I worship only God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He is and was not a dissident French archbishop duly excommunicated. How is God a false prophet according to the faux authority of the schism? How are His fruits failures?
Tempus fugit! Memento mori!
"The schism is in constant full attack mode on all actually Catholic authority."
Which schism do you refer? It is quite confusing when you use the word "schism" because you so aptly describe the NO revolution. The USSCB just decided they don't need to obey Canon Law when distributing Holy Communion - who is attacking authority? You claim SSPX priests teach revolution in their sermons - if anything they are teaching about the NO revolution hell-bent on destroying the Catholic faith. How many examples of the NO revolution do you need to see to qualify it? You are noting a pinhole in the wall while the house is engulfed in flames. Paul VI said "The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church." October 13, 1977. JPII also recently stated there is a "silent apostasy" in the church - will you accept their opinion there is a revolution?
Consuming a steady diet of revolutionary sermons seems quite likely to be relevant because it undermines the credibility of arguments of even fully Catholic persons on matters in institutions that are the responsibility of actual Catholics in communion with Rome. Ninenot on the topic of, oh, Rembert Weakland.
Here we have a conundrum, eh?
"Here we have a conundrum, eh?"
Gosh, I hope this isn't embarrassing, BlackElk. Maybe I should have included "conspiracy" in my previous post?
Well, the irony was too much to resist.
But there IS a difference: Rembert was the legitimate Archbishop of Milwaukee.
SSPX-types are legitimately excommunicated.
"Well, the irony was too much to resist."
And let's remember, Weakland paid close to 1/2 million in "hush money" to a former lover, and was ALLOWED to quietly retire, after JPII first refused his resignation. Thanks for the post! :)
Pas a shaug.
Now, in my linguistic ignorance of Aramaic, I would have imagined that second sentence of yours to have been in a Celtic language and the first tyo have been in some Eastern European tongue if it was an actual sentence. Shows how much I know!
There were two other short answer questions.
Also, I gave you one sentence. You gave me two. Finally, is your word count not short?
In any event, congratulations insofar as they are due.
God takes obedience seriously. We have had to suffer both of these rebellious sorry excuses for prelates because Eve just couldn't shut out the serpent's arguments and could not lay off the fruit of that tree and Adam had to go along and get along with Eve.
Your screenname is new (6/8/04). What names have you used here previously or simultaneously? Ninenot and I have been beating up on AmChurch generally and Weakland, in particular, here.
Just in case you are actually innocent of adherence to SSPX and its ecclesiastical crimes, the argument tends to be between those actual Catholics who are in communion with the Holy See, revile AmChurch pseudo-Catholicism, would like the malefactor perverted pedophile clerics burned at the stake en masse, and are angry as warranted with depredations by pervert pseudoCatholic clerics and antiCatholic groupies like SSPX wherever they may be found and, on the other hand, a tiny less than a few who defend those AmChurchian types and their counterparts in various world locales and the equally repulsive pseudo-"traditionalists" of the SSPX schism and its excommunicated leaders, dead or alive, who are self-appointed and self-annointed judges of the pope instead of submitting to him in obedience.
Is the pope Catholic?
Do you accept his authority and submit to him in obedience as Vicar of Christ on Earth.
If the answer to either of those questions is no, why are we talking? In that case, you would have nothing to say that is worth hearing by actual Catholics in communion with the Holy See. You are entering very old arguments here as is your right. No one has the obligation to shield you from the Truth, however.
If you are dissatisfied with Catholicism and the institutional Church, there are thousands of other Christian denominations where you may go and other places as well. In which case, buh-bye!
No, in fact you worship a man, the Pope, to whom you ascribe an absolutism Vatican I has clearly rejected. You exalt instead blind obedience, which is wrong and culpable, and you do this by accepting every papal hiccup as a sign from Heaven not to be criticized nor second-guessed. This is not only unCatholic, it is idolatrous. Every Catholic is obliged in conscience to defend the faith--even if it means resisting a papal command.
As for John XXII, his history is so well-known I see no reason to do a google search. Do one yourself. Try the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'm sure you'll find he mistakenly taught that the souls of the Blessed do not see God until after the final judgment. This scandalized theologians who accused him of heresy. He apologized in his final days and retracted his view before his death. It was a classic example of material heresy on the part of a pope.
1. What were the precise Aramaic words?
ARAMAIC (air a MAY ic): The language of the ancient Aramaean people. The language, also used in parts of the Bible, survived down through our Lord's time and into the seventh century as a written and a spoken language. It was then gradually replaced with Arabic with the Arab conquerors. Aramaic developed different dialects, divided into eastern and western Aramaic. While on earth, Jesus spoke a western (Palestinian) form of the language. *Syriac is a language related to Aramaic.
SYRIAC (SEER ee ak): A language related to *Aramaic. Syriac is divided into two basic dialects; eastern (centered in ancient *Nisibis and *Edessa, in modern-day southern Turkey), and western (centered in *Antioch and Palestine). Syriac survived as an academic language for several centuries, as the bible and many Greek classics were translated into Syriac; and a whole body of original Syriac literature exists. It also served as a liturgical language in the Syriac *Churches (of which the *Maronite Church is one) even to this day. The metrical homilies of St. *Ephrem are a good example of the use of Syriac. See ARAMAIC.
From the Maronite Liturgy:
Aramaic Consecration
Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh
ma' bed hy eh
nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to.
Ou ba rekh
ou qa desh
waq so
ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar:
Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon:
Ho no den ee tow faghro deel
day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey
meh tez seh ou meh tee heb
lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam
'ol meen.
English Translation
On the day before his life-giving passion,
Jesus took bread in his holy hands.
He blessed,
sanctified,
broke,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat it, all of you:
This is my body
which is broken and delivered for you
and for many,
for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Ho kha no 'al ko so dam zeegh wo men ham ro ou men ma yo ba rekh ou qa desh ou ya be tal me dow kad o mar: Sab esh tow meh neh kul khoon: Ho no den ee tow dmo deel dee ya tee qee hda to dah lo fy koon wah lof sa gee yeh meh teh shed ou meh tee heb lhoo so yo dhow behwal ha yeh dal o'lam 'ol meen. Likewise he blessed the cup of wine mixed with water, sanctified, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and drink from it, all of you: This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed and handed over for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Source: Glossary of Maronite Terms
Do you believe that "for many" suggests that the sacrifice was unavailable to any post-sacrifice of the cross human at birth? Or does it suggest merely that some would reject salvation by the wrong exercise of free will? Do your pastors have opinions on this question?
Please copy any and all answers to VCR.
FR is wonderful. We have at least two admirably Catholic folks with access to expertise in Aramaic.
Thanks in advance.
Anyone familiar with my posts here knows that I have no use for what is legitimately called AmChurch. Since you are new here, you get a very temporary pass on your suggestions to the contrary.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You state Ecclesia is authoritative. Fine. The only problem is that it is in direct conflict with a more authoritative document--Canon Law. Canon 1323 allows for a subject to disobey if he fears a state of necessity. It says nothing about whether such a state must exist or not. The canon is only concerned with the interior state of the subject and how he perceives a situation. If said subject sincerely believed there was a state of necessity which forced him to disobey, no penalty is incurred according to canon 1323. The Archbishop evoked the canon--legally and honestly.
But this is not all. Not only does a canon allow for disobedience under certain conditions, but another canon stated that even if the individual were WRONG about such a state of necessity, as long as he sincerely believed there was an emergency, no penalty is incurred. How much clearer can this be? It was not up to the Pope to decide what was in the Archbishop's mind when he "disobeyed", it was the Archbishop's call, not the Pope's.
If the Pope had wanted to prove that the Archbishop was culpable, he ought not to have relied on a latae sententiae decree, but on a formal tribunal, the traditional route for disciplining high churchmen. Such a tribunal would have called witnesses, allowed for a full airing of the dispute, and rendered a fair-and-square verdict, ferendae sententiae. He didn't do this--probably because this would have given the Archbishop the right to defend himself. It would have meant bringing up embarrassing conflicts regarding matters of faith in which the papacy was at loggerheads with the Church's own Tradition. So the Pope did an end-run and used the pretext of an automatic latae sententiae to falsely charge the Archbishop with excommunication and schism. \
As for what the Pontiff owes me or doesn't owe me--that is a ridiculous point to bring up. I am not important--but the faith itself is. The Pope owes explanations not to me, but to millions like myself who expect more from a pope than poetry. We expect a vigorous defense of the traditional faith--not novelties that have nothing to do with the faith. We want faith-affirming Masses and clearly Catholic catechesis for our children. We want bishops who are devout and orthodox not corrupt and apostate. It is all well and good that he is so worried about Buddhists and Jews and Muslims. But his own Catholic sheep are starving. He needs to follow Christ's injunction to feed his lambs and his sheep before he attends to the Hindus.
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.