Posted on 05/15/2005 11:00:40 PM PDT by mandatum
I am not completely sure what you are trying to say, but let me take a guess? You are implying that I am a member of SSPX? And that my grousing can be dismissed as propoganda of Bishop Fellay?
For your information I do not attend an SSPX chapel but instead attend an indult Tridentine mass. I will also poke my head into a nearby Novus Ordo service if I can't make the 50-mile trip to the Tridentine mass. So I have first-hand knowledge of the treacle insanity that is passing for Catholicism at my local parish church. You say your church is orthodox and your priest is holy and the service reverent. Good for you. You are part of an especially blessed minority. The other 99% of Catholics who still attend church regularly face a rather different reality. And that dismal reality I largely blame on the heterodoxy and modernist enthusiasms unleashed by Vatican II.
From the available evidence, Bishop Levada looks like more of the same. And how exactely am I suppossed to be encouraged by his appointment?
Dear sinkspur,
Excellent post. Thanks.
sitetest
This is how Levada treats diocesan priests who report homosexual molesters.
----
From the Dallas Morning News:
The Rev. John Conley told diocese officials and authorities nearly five years ago that he had walked in on a colleague straddling a kneeling 15-year-old altar boy in a dark rectory room. A few months later, Father Conley was placed on administrative leave.
He has filed a lawsuit that accuses Archbishop Levada of retaliating against him for reporting the other priest, the Rev. James Aylward, to police. The archdiocese has denied any wrongdoing, and Father Aylward described the November 1997 incident as "horseplay and wrestling."
During a meeting with Archbishop Levada in late 1997, Father Conley, a former federal prosecutor, tried to record a conversation as directed by his lawyer. But the archbishop refused and, when Father Conley persisted, accused him of insubordination. Father Conley was then put on leave, a move the church said was unrelated. He remains on leave.
As for Father Aylward, police said they could not find sufficient evidence for charges, and a church inquiry ruled his behavior inappropriate but not sexual. Father Aylward continued to deny wrongdoing until 2000, when he admitted during a deposition to a history of touching boys, including wrestling with them for sexual pleasure. After the deposition, Father Aylward was placed on leave from his parish job, and later that year, the archdiocese paid a plaintiff $750,000.
Walsh was in Las Vegas before Santa Rosa, I don't know much about his time there.
There was an expose a couple of years ago about the 'old boys's network', which Mahony and Zeiman and one other guy was mentioned in this very long article. I'll try to find it. Hang on...
Here it is, sorry, you'll have to cut and paste -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/700876/posts
Someone (probably not you) appears to be playing fast and loose with statistics, as some of the incidents counted involved adults, not children. And some of the incidents were physical, not sexual violence.
Right. That's why I posted the link. :)
The John Jay Study, commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, in 2002, found that, between 1950 and 2000, 4,000 priests had over 11,000 credible accusations made against them. That's about 4% of the total number of priests in the US during that time.
Thank you Sinky!
I read the documents of V2. I must have missed that part. Please post a reference
As for the possibility of your deathwish list being realized, there is a better chance that Britany Spears will be the next Pope
Allen made, and acknowledged and apologized for, many errors in his bio about Card. Ratzinger. I don't trust Allen - esp. given he writes for the execrable NCR. Who knows it what context this statement was made _ if it was made
The same authority which gave us Nicea, Lateran I, Trent, Vatican I etc is the same authority that gave us the Vatican II Ecuemnical Council. Attack Vatican Two and you attack all Ecuemnical Councils.
Because it is the same Church as pre-Trent, Pre-Lateran I, pre-Nicea.
Sheesh
LMAO Now Levada is anti-Catholic LMAO
Well, we could start with Dignitatis Humanae and the willful destruction of the Catholic State in Western Europe. Would you like to discuss Dignitatis Humanae? Fine, then explain to me how a rational human being can reconcile DH with previous Papal Encyclicals? That should take a few months to a year. Then we can plow into Ecumenism and current Vatican pronouncements on desirabilty of converting Jews to the faith.
Thank you!
Nope. It takes a real Christian one second.
He who hears you hears me.
You sound like a Liberal Traditionalist. I deal with them a lot. You are no diferent that a Liberal - except your liberalism is on the right.
Please inform me as to what a "liberal traditionalist" is?
*Certainly. A liberal is, in essence, one who decides for himself. He is his own authority and he will "obey" the Magisterium if what the Magisterium Teaches agrees with his own personal opinion. If the Magsterium teaches or takes decisions he opposes, he refuses to submit to the church. He is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. In a word, he is a protestant of the left.
A Libertrad (a liberal traditionalist) is the "right" or "conservative" counterpoint to a Liberal. He too, in essence, is one who decides for himself. He is his own authority for what Tradition is. When the Magisterium takes decisions about ecclesiastical traditions he does not approve of, he wars against the Magisterium - publicly and relentlessly. When it is pointed out it is the Magisterium which decides what is and isn't Tradition, he will begin citing the personal oponions of this or that theologian, far-right polemicist, schismatic etc and he will attack the very Christian Church Jesus established insinuating, if not outright claiming, the Magisterium is untrustworthy, devious, deceptive, and intentionally destroying Tradition. His will must predominate. He will not submit to the Church. The Libertrad is, in a word, self-centered and egotistical. He does not love the Church. He judges the Church corrupt, schismatic, in error etc. It must be his personal opinion of what constitues Tradition which prevails. In a word, he is a protestant of the right
10 posted on 05/01/2005 7:48:35 AM PDT by bornacatholic (Libertrads. Following the anathematized to perdition.)
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.