Posted on 12/09/2004 6:49:02 PM PST by Land of the Irish
This is the key sentence in Brady's essay.
It marks an exponential leap in what RCF has been saying and doing over the past several years. From carefully investigating and documenting individual cases of clergy abuse and misbehavior, Brady is now sufficiently confident to state that most American bishops and members of the Roman Curia are homosexual.
This is a most grave accusation-whatever its veracity. If it is correct, it means that the Church will continue to crumble and wither for many years to come until time takes its course and the current crop of prelates departs this mortal coil.
On the other hand, if Brady has no specific information regarding this but says it only because of the frustration and constant difficulty of dealing with bishops who refuse to act on the evidence which he presents, then he needs to be extremely careful.
RCF has up until now, done some good work from what I've seen. Of late however, I've noticed them giving prominence in their publications to people like Malachi Martin whose own writings and words indicate a taste for sedevacantism.
It would be a shame if RCF was to go that route.
Joseph Sobran
It's a personal opinion, nothing more.
You guys are going overboard trying to read something that's not there.
That's Fr. Malachi Martin, and his writings are that of a faithful, eloquent and knowledgeable Catholic priest, now deceased. May he rest in peace, and may his name not be slandered.
Another great article from Roman Catholic Faithful. These guys deserve such an immense amount of credit. Brady's courage in the face of persecution has been remarkable. And one can witness step-by-step how he has had his eyes opened to the truth about the hierarchy. Brady began by realizing that he did not want the local homosexual bishop corrupting his children. Eventually his further research has led him to the inescapable conclusion that the entire hierarchy is corrupt.
I think the same process has probably occurred in the lives of virtually all the traditional Catholics here on FR and elsewhere. We start by saying, "No, I won't allow you to teach 'sex ed' to my kids or tell them that the Bible is collection of fables, or that the eucharist is only a symbol of Jesus." When we turn to the pastor we realize that he is on the other side, and when we go to the bishop we find out that he is too, and when we look at the entire hierarchy we see the same thing, and when we finally turn to Rome believing that the pope at least is faithful, we discover that the disorder in the body stems from the head.
But no matter how discouraging it is to learn that everyone you hoped to rely on has been corrupted, at the same time it can be a great opportunity for grace if it leads you to the traditional Catholic faith. Many Catholics who otherwise might have lived and died in ignorance and tepidity have been inspired to discover for themselves the Catholic faith of all time. You must find a refuge where the traditional Catholic faith is believed and practiced and the traditional Holy Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. You cannot stay in the midst of the corruption and hope to save your soul anymore than you can go swimming in a pool without getting wet.
By the way, Bishop Gregory sees no problem with homosexuals in the seminary.I would very much like to hear what Bishop Gregory actually said and the context in which he said it.
Brady's opinion is that most of the American bishops and Roman Curia are homosexual.
He is the spokesperson for an organization which investigates clerical abuse. If he makes his personal opinions public in RCF's official publication that reflects, for better or for worse, on his organization and the work it does.
You or I can say "they're all gay" or something equally outrageous on a forum like this and nobody cares. Brady needs to be more circumspect unless he has good evidence to back up his opinion, in my opinion.
His opponents will be only too happy to paint him as a loose cannon and undermine his credibility.
If this is not undermining the legitimate authority of the Pope, questioning Christ's promise to Peter about the gates of hell and promoting schismatic parallel structures, I don't know what is. It is the same playbook that Luther and Calvin used -- use abuses and corruption, real and alleged, among members of Church to undermine the Church, get people to leave her and build up other non-canonical structures.
I think it's fair to say that he "flirted" with sedevacantism, at times appearing to cross the line into that area while at other times backing away from it.
Many of his opinions were aired on the Art Bell show and so I'm not sure that I can supply a link if that's what you desire but they were certainly not mainstream.
That's BS and you know it. If newspapers can have editorials why can't Brady express his own opinion in his own newsletter.
His opponents will be only too happy to paint him as a loose cannon and undermine his credibility.
Opponents such as you, huh? Fine, don't buy his goods.
Based on Brady's track record, he can backup his statements.
His pattern in the past has been to work with church authorities as long as they act in good faith. When they stop acting in good faith he releases the evidence, in all its sordid detail.
"RCF does not promote parallel structures, though I am not surprised to see you using this article to promote them...They are not undermining the legitimate authority of the Pope and the bishops, just saying they should be exercised to do certain things. That is all the difference in the world from schismatic Lefebvrists who want to pull down the temple, not cleanse and reform it."
What "parallel structures"? That is pure nonsense again from your corner. There are no SSPX structures beyond what had been originally provided. No jurisdictions have been usurped anywhere in the fashion of the Chinese Patriotic Society which not only steals jurisdictions, but openly declares its rejection of the papacy and support for the state, including its forced abortion policy, and yet receives only blandishments from the Pontiff. But the SSPX has done none of this--and publicly supports the Pontiff--who has unilaterally rejected it, though even Cardinal Hoyos has admitted to the president of Una Voce that the Society has created no parallel structures of the sort you claim.
And just how do I undermine "the legitimate authority of the Pope and the bishops"? merely by criticizing their destructive policies? Are Catholics supposed to acquiesce silently while they continue to swing the wrecking-ball? Even when they enact policies that destroy the faith? I don't think so--especially not where our children are involved. You believe that because I defend devout and dedicated priests from slanderous attacks, I am "trying to pull down the temple." But yet you have not been able to show where my logic is mistaken--only that you don't like it because it criticizes the Pope. You don't much mind my criticizing the middle management--I just mustn't complain about the boss--the one truly in charge.
You even prove my case by arguing that the Pontiff has spoken out many times against homosexuality--as if speaking out in a few speeches were enough. When is it permissible to wonder why he has taken no real action against these men who have openly pushed the gay agenda? When are we permitted to say he should have reformed the seminaries long before now, that he should have improved the system of bishop-selection long before now, that even if he won't punish bad bishops, at least they ought not to be rewarded? Speaking and doing are two different things. It is not enough to globe-trot endlessly; a pope must do much much more to protect his Church and the deposit of faith--both of which have suffered great damage during his pontificate.
Simply untrue.
2Vat closed long before 1983. The Pope (or his assistants) wrote the new Canon Law; only the Pope can promulgate it.
2Vat had nothing whatever to do with it.
Too bad--in all other regards, the article is accurate, if Brady is not lying about his personal experiences (and I don't think he is.)
But it's not exactly NEWS that Rome has been screwed up for a while--Pius X saw it coming, Benedict XV chose to ignore it, Pius XII tried to fix it, John XXIII tried the same but gave away the game by calling 2Vat; Paul VI was inexplicable, JPI barely warmed his bed, and JPII has ignored it, at some peril.
But then, I don't get special guidance from the Third Person of the Trinity--so maybe what JPII and his gang is doing is exactly right.
No question that the effects are God's Will...
Unam Sanctam, by the way, has patronized the CCPA Mao "masses" in the past and says he has a "clear conscience" about doing so.
Too bad. Aquinas legitimizes the death penalty, and the TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub happens to think that there are MANY instances in which it would be warranted.
I honestly do believe that the Pope has been in the dark since the assassination attempt against him. He is gravely ill, and people around him who have no conscience or morals, are taking advantage of this.
I remember as a child attending parochial school, that the whole attitude changed after Vatican II. If you wouldn't bend to the new rules, then look out. I refuse to have my children attend CCD classes run by feminist nuns, and possibly homosexual priests. I'd rather send my youngest to a Baptist Bible study. It's safer regarding heresy.
Bishop XXXXXXXXX: "Do you expect me to talk?"
TTGC: "No, Your Excellency, we expect you to repent!"
Here is what Maximilian wrote: "Many Catholics who otherwise might have lived and died in ignorance and tepidity have been inspired to discover for themselves the Catholic faith of all time. You must find a refuge where the traditional Catholic faith is believed and practiced and the traditional Holy Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass is offered. You cannot stay in the midst of the corruption and hope to save your soul anymore than you can go swimming in a pool without getting wet."
Here is your answer: "If this is not undermining the legitimate authority of the Pope, questioning Christ's promise to Peter about the gates of hell and promoting schismatic parallel structures, I don't know what is."
In other words, according to you not remaining in corruption, but seeking to find a refuge where "the traditional Catholic faith is believed and practiced" is undermining the legitimate authority of the Pope! This is incredible. Put another way, you are saying that to believe and practice the faith is to undermine the Pope! No wonder you are hostile. You can't tell the difference between legitimate Catholicism and your brand, which is pure idolatry--i.e., worship of the pope himself.
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.