Influential Priest-Canonist is Abuser

Adoremus Bulletin ^ | September, 2002 | Helen Hull Hitchcock

[ultima ratio]

By the way, the idea that Lefebvre was offered the right to consecrate one bishop, but he chose to consecrate four is not the real story. The real scoop is that Rome wanted to pick the one bishop. Given the track record of Rome's choices for prelates the past forty years, how wrong do you think Lefebvre was to refuse?

[Dec31,1999]

Nice post. The truth really hurts the child molester supporters, which they richly deserve.

[ultima ratio]

Personal destruction? Can't you see this is itself a personal attack, inasmuch as it is false? I challenge you--show me where I've ever gotten personal. I think I have tried heroically to restrain my animus and stick to arguments at hand even when I have been on the receiving end of a lot of anger, bile, abuse, etc. You, like many others, confuse my criticism of the papacy or my hard-hitting rebuttals with unfair attacks. But I have never gotten personal with anyone. If I have, I will publicly apologize. But the fact is, I haven't.

[Polycarp]

Would you still argue despite this that JnPaulII--for all his charisma and immense popularity--had the right to command Lefebvre not to consecrate, knowing full well that the Archbishop was old and in ill health and would have no successor to assure the ordination of traditional priests, and knowing full well this would mean the destruction of the traditional Mass?

Who are you trying to kid? Lefevre was indeed permitted to consecrate a bishop. One bishop. He chose instead to consecrate Four. In absolute disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. After being told explicitly of the consequences of such acts! Yes, JPII had the right to allow Lefevre to consecrate ONE bishop. Only one, if JPII thought that prudent. Your plea to emotionalism and necessity does not change this.

And the Indult was granted prior to this, so no claims such as yours here apply.

Would you admit that there are limits to what even a pope may command legitimately in such a dire situation?

No. Rome has spoken. Rome decided it was not dire. Closed case.

Would you admit the past few decades sheds fresh light on what Lefebvre saw

Yes

clearly as an attack on the faith itself which he properly and in good conscience rejected?

No, when he disobeyed the Pope he acted not out of good faith or good conscience but out of foolish pride, thinking he, a bishop, knew better what was right for the Church than the Pope elected by the Holy Spirit.

[NYer]

I think when they become bishop they choose a motto.I would appreciate it if you could find out.You are in one of their dioceses aren't you?Thanks.

Yes, I am in the Diocese of Albany. You ask a good question. A quick Google search turned up the tributes given at Hubbard's 25th anniversary celebration. I believe the following will more than answer that question.

It gives me great pleasure to be among those invited to salute Howard Hubbard on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of his ordination as Bishop of Albany.

I have known this great man for more than 40 years. I have cherished his friendship as fellow seminarian, brother priest, my bishop and brother bishop.

In all of those phases of our lives together, Howard's personal qualities have impressed me in many ways. Among those qualities are a wonderful mind, a generous spirit, and a reverent and compassionate disposition toward all.

In quiet and effective ways, he has made all of his wide gifts available to the Church and civic communities. His concern for and commitment to the poor have shown through all the years. His preaching, speaking and writings have been gifts not only to the Diocese of Albany but also to dioceses in every region of our nation. I most certainly include the Diocese of Rochester in that number.

Mostly, I salute with fine admiration the commitment Bishop Hubbard has made to the renewal of the Church to which Vatican Council II called all of us. His Episcopal motto, "Rejoice, We are God's People," is one that he has lived heart and soul during his 25 years of episcopal ministry in and for the Church.

With you, I thank God for the gift Howard is to all of us. With you, I pray that we will enjoy his friendship and leadership for many more years.

Most. Rev. Matthew Clark

Bishop Clark's motto is: "God’s Love Endures Forever."

Not much of a clue. Hubbard became bishop in 1977; Clark in 1979. Bishop of Rochester

[ultima ratio]

A couple of points. First the Indult of 1984 brought with it draconian conditions which the Society refused, properly, to accept. Among them was a condition that petitioners for the traditional Mass could have no ties to those who denied the doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Mass. Another was that such Masses could be celebrated only on days and circumstances approved by local bishops. Second, I have never heard of what you assert, that the Archbishop was granted permission to consecrate a single bishop. I have heard instead that this was to be a bishop chosen by Rome. Of course Lefebvre would refuse, again properly so.

[ninenot]

As usual, CG, you swallow the fish without looking for the bones first. The Council documents WERE somewhat ambiguous--and you ought to read THe Rhine Flows Into the Tiber if you can't believe Max.

THe ambiguities were exploited by Mgr. Bugnini (and you can read HIS book for verification) to produce, NOT a liturgy which was an organic growth, but a liturgy which was a break with tradition, which was manufactured and fabricated, and which has been further perverted by, (surprise) perverts-in-charge at the Liturgy Wonk meetings.

Knowing history can be quite valuable--and reading more than Jungmann's foo foo dust can also be helpful.

[ninenot]

Weakland was (allegedly) a Jadot pick. OTOH, there are those who claim that Weakland was drop-kicked out of Rome and simply was placed in the next available slot, which was Milwaukee.

His motto was something about "Charity to All" but that had absolutely NOTHING to do with his behavior. If you got in his way, or bothered him with facts, he would see to it that you were smeared, reviled, and dumped upon--no matter your station in the Milwaukee Archdiocese.

[dsc]

"It was necessary to pit conservatives against traditionalists for the left to get its way"

I don't follow your distinction between conservatives and traditionalists.

Wouldn't a conservative by definition be a traditionalist?

[Polycarp]

Personal destruction? Can't you see this is itself a personal attack, inasmuch as it is false? I challenge you--show me where I've ever gotten personal.

I'm talking about the leaders of the respective camps in general, not you. Stop being so self absorbed.

I have personally been victimized by these folks, and their politics of personal destruction.

In my case I was personally attacked by Steve Hand at TCRNews.com simply for having a close friend on Hand's personal enemies list.

(Amazingly enough, Hand apparently took that down from his website recently, I just looked for it to give you the link, but its been removed.)

However, those on both sides of this divide are notoriuos for their vitriol and bile, including both the Remnant/CFN types as well as the TCR types.

Again, I'm not talking about you personally.

[dsc]

"I've thought the same thing about his motto! However, Cardinal Law is considered to be one of the more orthodox Cardinals, and completely loyal to JPII. Appointed by JPII as well. What do you do with that?"

How can he be, when he knowingly protected priests whom he knew to be homosexual molesters?

[Maximilian]

>>Wouldn't a conservative by definition be a traditionalist?

A traditionalist is someone who tries to preserve the nature of the church as it has come down to us over the last 2000 years.

A conservative is someone who is not as liberal as the liberals.

A traditionalist relies on objective measures: e.g. "Here is the definitive statement of Pope Pius XI. Does the current statement agree, or does it say something different?"

A conservative relies on subjective measures: "Cardinals Weakland and Mahoney are way out in left field, but my church isn't that bad (yet)."

A traditionalist is dedicated to the defense of doctrines: e.g. "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."

A conservative is dedicated to personalities: e.g. the chant at World Youth Day: "JP 2, we love you."

[ultima ratio]

Not at all. Traditionalists adhere to the practices and teachings of the pre-conciliar Church, including attending the old Latin Mass exclusively. They affirm what had been handed-down by past popes and councils and are wary of Rome's present course which they believe is destroying the Catholic faith. They are not shy about laying the blame for the present mess on the Pope himself.

Conservatives may grouse about change but go along with even the most radical, provided it has the approval of Rome. They will criticize cardinals and bishops for corruption or heresy but draw the line at blaming the Pope. It is this devotion to the papacy which characterizes conservative Catholics most. To them, the Supreme Pontiff trumps everything else, even the Church's own tradition.

[ultima ratio]

I am not imagining things at all. Here is what you said a few posts ago. You spoke of "vitriol and insulting polemics". You spoke of "personal pride and ego and despair replacing charity". You called these battle-lines of "personal destruction". Then you added the following zinger:

"Neither side can win using such tactics. And the Church loses.

And when the Church 'loses,' souls are lost for eternity.

That is why I rarely engage Ultima Ratio and HDMZ on these threads, except for a brief occasional exchange"

So you see, you mischaracterize the situation. I think that was about as personal as you could get. "Such tactics" mean that "souls are lost for eternity." THAT IS WHY you "rarely engage" me and HDMZ, etc.

I'm still waiting to find out when I did such horrible things.

[Sursum Corda]

Wouldn't a conservative by definition be a traditionalist?

A traditionalist is someone who tries to preserve the nature of the church as it has come down to us over the last 2000 years.

A conservative is someone who is not as liberal as the liberals.

A traditionalist relies on objective measures: e.g. "Here is the definitive statement of Pope Pius XI. Does the current statement agree, or does it say something different?"

A conservative relies on subjective measures: "Cardinals Weakland and Mahoney are way out in left field, but my church isn't that bad (yet)."

A traditionalist is dedicated to the defense of doctrines: e.g. "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."

A conservative is dedicated to personalities: e.g. the chant at World Youth Day: "JP 2, we love you."

72 posted on 10/14/02 7:50 PM Pacific by Maximilian

How very trite! Of course, Max, you should reveal that you are a Lefebvrerite Trad, not a Papal Trad. You support the schismatics, such as the SSPX.

As a Papal Trad, I give more than lip service to our Holy Father and fully support the Indult and those who have come back into full communion with Rome, such as the founders of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

I see my attachment to the 'Tridentine' Mass as a licit choice. I could have also chosen the 'Novus Ordo', but I didn't. I accept both as valid and licit, when my Diocesean Bishop grants faculties to individual priests to celebrate either or both in his diocese.

FWIW, I still attend the occasional 'Novus Ordo" Mass' whether it is offered privately by a retired priest, or by a priest at, for example, a Knights of Columbus function. Again, while I prefer the 'Tridentine' form, I reject neither the validity, nor, in Christian charity, the licitness of most 'Novus Ordo' Masses. (I think that we all can agree that there are some NO Masses which are "over the top".

You make special note of "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."

Don't tell me that you are a Feeneyite too?

Sursum Corda

[Polycarp]

And when the Church 'loses,' souls are lost for eternity. That is why I rarely engage Ultima Ratio and HDMZ on these threads, except for a brief occasional exchange"

You read more into my posts than I intend. I apologize for making you think I was referring to you personally. My references were to the leaders of these two camps in general. I mentioned specifically that I try to avoid these debates here, specifically with you two.

Again, I was not intending to make it personal, and I apologize if you took it that way..

[Maximilian]

How very trite! Of course, Max, you should reveal that you are a Lefebvrerite Trad, not a Papal Trad... Don't tell me that you are a Feeneyite too?

Sorry for being trite. I know that not all my posts are sparkling examples of wit and wisdom. As far as exciting revelations, alas, I am not going to be able to be of service there either.

Your personal testimony is moving. I don't see how it contradicts anything in my conservative/traditionalist comparison. Nor do I see any implied criticism of you in my comparison.

Let's look at the doctrine you mention: "Extra ecclessiam, nulla salus." This is a defined de fide doctrine of the Church. Feeney got in trouble over his interpretation of the doctrine, but every Catholic is required to believe "There is no salvation outside the Church."

This is a good example of differing approaches: a traditionalist realizes that this is an essential dogma. A Catholic should be willing to sacrifice his life rather than deny it. A conservative looks at the personalities of the case and says, "Oh those are the Feeneyites. They're fanatics. I wouldn't want to be associated with them."

Here's the website of St. Benedict's Abbey in Still River, MA. They offer a beautiful INDULT Latin Mass for the public every Sunday. They are fully reconciled to the Church. And they still continue to teach "Extra ecclesiam, nulla sallus."

St. Benedict Abbey

They're traditionalists because they continue to proclaim the essential doctrines of the faith, whether they are popular or unpopular.

[Polycarp]

A conservative is someone who is not as liberal as the liberals...A conservative relies on subjective measures: "Cardinals Weakland and Mahoney are way out in left field, but my church isn't that bad (yet)." ...A conservative is dedicated to personalities: e.g. the chant at World Youth Day: "JP 2, we love you."

Well, this post at least locates you on the spectrum.

Personally, I detest the phrases "conservative" and "integrist" and "schismatic.

I prefer "orthodox" and "heterodox." There is room in the orthodox camp for traditionalists as well as those who accept the Novus Ordo as valid and licit if said according to rubrics.

Your denigration of so-called "conservatives" reveals more about you than them.

Cut through the hyperbole and just use the integrist term "neoconservative," OK? That is obviously the term you intend with these remarks.

[ultima ratio]

I apologize myself for being insufferable at times in the way I argue a point.

[Maximilian]

Cut through the hyperbole and just use the integrist term "neoconservative," OK? That is obviously the term you intend with these remarks.

I would have used the term "neo-Catholic" if that's what I intended. But I didn't intend my remarks to be "denigration." There's nothing wrong with being to the right of Mahoney and Weakland. There's nothing wrong with chanting "JP 2, we love you." These are not denigrations. I think if you read it again, you'll see that it's more of a "pick your preference," and there's nothing inherently denigrating about my references to "conservatives."

How can you be on FreeRepublic and "detest the phrase conservative"? These are useful labels and there's nothing perjorative about them. Go ahead and call me an "integrist" if you want. I don't find it insulting. As far as "schismatic," however, that would be factually incorrect.

One example would be Cardinal Ratzinger. At Vatican II he was considered a liberal. Now he's considered a conservative. His views haven't changed, but his relative position has changed. This demonstrates that "conservative" is a relative term. It doesn't make the word an insult, just demonstrates the nature of the term.