Priest Found Hanged

Accused priest apparently takes own life at Maryland hospital
Copyright © 2002 AP Online

SILVER SPRING, Md. (May 16, 2002 7:57 p.m. EDT) - A 64-year-old priest who resigned from his parish in Connecticut amid allegations of sexual misconduct apparently killed himself Thursday at a Catholic psychiatric hospital, church officials said. The Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., identified the priest as the Rev. Alfred J. Bietighofer, who was stripped last month of his priestly powers and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Two men told diocesan officials Bietighofer abused them when they were boys in the late 1970s and early 1980s, church officials said.

Bietighofer was found hanged in his room Thursday at St. Luke Institute, according to Prince George's County police and hospital officials.

"I am profoundly saddened by the tragic death of Father Alfred Bietighofer," Bridgeport Bishop William Lori said in a statement. "To parishioners and to all those whom Father Bietighofer assisted during the course of his priestly ministry, I extend my sincere sympathy and prayers."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.K. Dick was the first writer who came to mind in relation to the I Ching.

I really don't know enough about Zonosophy to comment on its internal administration or sexual customs. Which may be why I prefer the "Catholic" part of the original discussion topic.

I do think goofy liberal ideologies have played a role in the current sexual confusion underlying the scandals on the front pages.

And their entire following of 10-12?

Neo-Tech has no leader or followers. Back in 1996 they had over a million customers that had bought their literature. That was by far mostly before the Neo-Tech Web site was put up. Its probably up to three million customers by now. They're very aggressive marketers. To a person ignorant of Neo-Tech that may seem an inconsequential number of customers.

At first sight, Wallace's Zonpower writings are reminiscent of the SubGenius nonsense of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs. Except that SubGenii are satirists, whereas (as you will discover) Zonpower cultists are not funny at all.

I keep asking you three question and you continually avoid answering them. They are honest, straight forth questions of great importance to freedom and prosperity. They deal directly with the root/foundation of Neo-Tech/Zonpower. See below...

From the Neo-Tech Constitution.

Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

Questions: Whose rights do you want to violate by initiating force against them?... Or are you so cowardly that you would petition government agents to initiate force on your behalf? More importantly what person, group or government do you want to violate your individual-property rights?

Good reason for it too. It can't have any effect other to get you laughed off of the thread.

You would be surprised how many people have been introduced to Neo-Tech on this forum and like the literature. But not by my advertising rather, by other people bringing the topic into discussions. I have never been laughed off a thread because of Neo-Tech. Mainly because the laughter that has come came from people I deem unworthy of being granted my respect. Now if somebody whose writings I admired took to laughing as a way to attack I would take special notice of that.

That's almost as good as learning the Ancient Chinese Secret.

Do you normally dismiss out of hand that which you know so little about? What do you know about nature's quintessential secret? I hazard to guess nothing. More importantly, the core foundation of Neo-Tech rests on the Neo-Tech constitution. See post #244 for the three Articles. Then answer the below three questions... if you can.

Whose rights do you want to violate by initiating force against them?

Or are you so cowardly that you would petition government agents to initiate force on your behalf?

More importantly what person, group or government do you want to violate your individual-property rights?

For what it's worth, I'm amazed how we (somewhow through the aetheric labyrinths of rhetorical/semiotic gymnastics) managed to get from a dead priest in a psych ward to Zontechosophy, the quintessence, and Philip K. Dick's I Ching gnosticism. I'll take some claim for that last part, but...

Ironically, there is a way to connect the libertarian snippets with Catholicism via Magna Carta, Thomas Aquinas' On Kingship, John Courtney Murray, and the Acton Institute but I'm not quite left-brained enough to pull this off at the moment...

http://www.acton.org

I asked politely before about posting this philosophical discussion on a thread dedicated to the topic. In the spirit of civility, I am asking again. The inner theology and propositional metaphysics of Zonology, however fascinating, is not that relevant to this issue (Catholic priest scandals). I have not raided a Zon thread to weave in discussions about the Holy Trinity or the nature of the Eucharist, so...ahem...please, if you could...

Suppose Bob has Fred over for dinner. Fred is a serial killer wanted by the police. But Bob is a Zonpower nut who's taken a shine to Fred, and has arranged for him to stay in his house indefinitely. The cops come to Bob's place with a warrant for Fred's arrest, but Bob won't let them on his property. Should the cops initiate force against Bob's property by forcing their way in, arresting Fred, and taking him away, against Bob's wishes?

First thing first, Fred initiated force. Second, that is cause for the police to use force in self-defense to apprehend Fred. Fred initiated force and by that act has given up his right to not have force used against him in apprehending him. The police would be ethical and moral to use force to apprehend Fred and it doesn't mater whether Fred is walking down the street or in Bob's house. If Bob choose to harbor a criminal (Fred) he becomes an accomplice and that constitutes the initiation of force. Thus the police with warrant in hand would be using force in self-defense.

It's easy to understand if you want to understand. And it is obvious to me that you don't want to understand. How do I know that? Because several of your comments have made that clear. Such as "But Bob is a Zonpower nut", is clear to me that you have no interest in learning how Neo-Tech may benefit you.

You're welcome. People should be made aware of the mind-virus plague known as Zonpower/Neo-Tech.

Well, since that's what you think then do everybody a favor and advertise the heck out of it. You'll be doing yourself and everybody else a good favor.

Perpetual motion? The philosopher's stone? The Fifth Dimension? Or the perpetual orgasm?

"Individual conscious life means eternal prosperity. Such is nature’s quintessential secret -- a secret unknown throughout Earth’s three millennia of recorded history. …Neo-Tech discovered that secret." -- PAX NEO-TECH

An excellent start at understanding the wide-scope implications of that -- as sure of your beliefs as you seem to be you should have no problem having your beliefs remain intact reading Chapter 6, A Cosmology of Infinite Riches. It's about a one hour read. But perhaps some of your beliefs don't hold up, then what? It may scare the heck out of you to read literature that is so powerful. Maybe you shouldn't read it and perhaps dismiss it out of hand so that you can ensure that you maintain your beliefs even if they are harming you.

I don't have any problem (really) discussing elaborate philosophical or ideological systems. I just sort of wanted to try to keep things a little closer to the American Catholic milieu around which the central topic of this thread revolves. And, while musing here whimsically on a few quaffs of Guinness, I don't have a problem with the fact that many people embrace varieties of secular humanism, 18th-century Enlightenment naturalism, mixtures of Stoic, Epicurean, and Sophistic relativism, mechanistic scientism, emotional atheism, post-Cartesian alienated neo-primitivist romantic vitalism or the like, since we all know that is a main current in modern ideological cultures. I just think that it is the sign of the mature intellectual to recognize some courtesy for those of us who are theists and find something of value in the spiritual interpretation of reality found in traditional Christianity. It also does expand civility in public discourse. And sometimes we pass on good ideas, useful insights, and fascinating reading material in the mutual quest for understanding and appreciating the richness of reality.

I'm betting on the burst bubble being yours, bub. You were doing such an excellent job on the 2nd amendment threads. Then you did the philosophical equivalent of bending over and passing gas.

What is a bub you keep mentioning? Is that your cutesy-wootzie idea of an insult or way to belittle. If it is, here's a hint, I think it demonstrates your redneck immaturity.

The core foundation of Neo-Tech is the Neo-Tech Constitution. Here's is the crux of what you call "the philosophical equivalent of bending over and passing gas." Followed by three simple questions for you to answer.

From the Neo-Tech Constitution.

Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

Questions:
Whose rights do you want to violate by initiating force against them?

Or are you so cowardly that you would petition government agents to initiate force on your behalf?

More importantly, what person, group or government do you want to violate your individual-property rights?

No bubble here. Just reality. Let me suggest Yale Prof. Louis Dupre's "Secular Philosophy and Its Origins at the Dawn of the Modern Age." This should clear up some of the intellectual background for grasping ontological presuppositions and the a priori/empiricism conflict integral to the contradiction in the original post with Jaynes, etc. This leg of the argument is rather exhaustively documented in the relevant literature.

Oh no, you pulled rank again and try to hide looking down at me... oh you wise authority figure -- NOT!!! I suspect that pope Urban would think highly of you.

What do you suppose would happen to all supernatural-God believing religions if documented evidence showed that conscious beings (obviously not conscious beings from Earth but elsewhere where they would be far more technologically advanced than Earth technology) created the Universe? What happens to all those scriptures? I'll tell you what happens, they all go into the garbage can.

This in part explains where Neo-Tech/Zonpower is coming from:

"To begin understanding how the dynamics of Neo-Tech work, go back four centuries: During the early 1580s, in the back of a classroom at the University of Pisa, sat a young student, hands folded behind his head. As usual, he sat quietly smiling at the professor. Trapped in their special-interest closed boundaries, professors feared, loathed, and pointedly avoided that student. The student was Galileo Galilei. He knew less than those learned authorities, yet, he outflanked them with ever-wider integrations and fully-integrated honesty. Galileo rendered their knowledge, words, and writings obsolete. They knew that; he knew that. Thus, they feared, loathed, and pointedly avoided him. Fifty years later, learned-authority Pope Urban would prosecute Galileo in the Inquisitions for obsoleting Catholic-church dogma. …Those authorities vanished from history. Galileo prevailed." -- PAX NEO-TECH

There is that rather famous statement in one of the primary Christian documents about which volumes have been written in commentary. It's worth contemplating.

"gnosesthe ten aletheian, kai he aletheia eleutherosei humas."

("You shall know the truth, and the Truth shall set you free.") - John 8:32

Of course, the direction of reflection depends on what the reader understands by "truth" and by being set "free." Christians (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) have debated such things continuously.

This is how one observer sees it: Here.

That remark about Pope Urban would seem to reveal the rather exaggerated and sophomoric understanding of papal authority one might find among the more paranoid type of secular humanists. Really, if you are stalking this thread to heckle me or the articles of faith Catholics believe as revealed mysteries of religion, that kind of bigotry is not needed. I'm definitely not an Ultramontane papalist, so you are really barking up the wrong tree here. You've got the wrong guy for these thorns and nails.I've asked several times. Please take your Zonosophical sermons elsewhere.

Suicide is a mortal sin.

"What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

To make a sin mortal three things are necessary:

first, the thought, desire, word, action, or comission must be seriously wrong or considered seriously wrong;
second, the sinner must be mindful of the serious wrong;
third, the sinner must fully consent to it.

Baltimore Catechism No. 2.

I've seen it expressed elsewhere more briefly as "Grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will." In either case, the latter two conditions depend on the state of mind of the person, making it difficult at least to judge whether someone else's act qualifies as a mortal sin.

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.