Church Militant TV - Pride and Prejudice

JMJ

Continuing from yesterday's post, I'd like to take a quick look at CMTV's personal response to the SSPX press release ( Church Militant: Response to SSPX press release ).

Since Baresel's first article was shot down ... they appear to be trying to save face. First, by reiterating the assertion that the SSPX is somehow sheltering Fr. McLucas ... even though he isn't a member, doesn't reside with the SSPX and ... well wasn't convicted of a crime. They show their bias by restating the unproven allegation that Fr. McLucas committed sin with the woman in her twenties. Later they correctly state that this is an allegation.

Since there isn't any traction here they move on to other allegations, listing them as 'Evidence of protecting sexual predators'.

Case 1 Fr. Peignot: It's weird that CMTV makes this case, which ends with the SSPX "... After Andre took his complaint to the Vatican, the Vatican authorized the SSPX to begin a canonical trial against Peignot, which found him guilty of sex abuse". Doesn't really support their allegation, the SSPX is sheltering him, then in the end they condemn him.

Case 2 Kevin Sloniker: While it they make it look like the abuse happened on an SSPX camp, it leaves out that the incidents occurred elsewhere:

Some of the incidents occurred when Sloniker took boys on the road with him in his truck, according to court testimony. There are more alleged victims in Washington and North Dakota, according to court testimony.

I guess they also missed this part:

To the Faithful

Society of St. Pius X

Immaculate Conception Church and Academy
PO Box 206
Post Falls, ID 83877

Statement to the Faithful about Kevin G. Sloniker

Kevin G. Sloniker had been attending and serving Mass at Immaculate Conception Church in Post Falls, ID, where he was a volunteer camp counselor in summer camps around a decade ago.

He has been charged in state court with very serious crimes concerning children and is now in police custody.

The Society has been cooperating fully with the police investigation of Mr. Sloniker for more than five weeks.

To date, the Society of St. Pius X has not been advised of any report of criminal activity at the church or on the summer camps. The investigation is ongoing.

The Society of St. Pius X, its priests, and its employees take the protection of minors most seriously. The summer camps are quite structured and supervised, and, since 2012, the Society of St. Pius X has required background checks for all camp counselors.
The Society of St. Pius X assures all victims of abuse and their families of its compassion and prayers.

Any further questions about this statement should be addressed to Fr. Scott Gardner, Legal Secretary: (816) 733-2522.
October 29, 2015 http://icc.id.sspx.org/en/faithful

The incidents also occurred at the homes of the victims.

Case 3: Fr. Christophe Roisnel: This is also weird as I tried to reconstruct the events. Acts committed in 2010, dismissed in 2011, complaint filed in 2013, arrested in 2014, sentenced in 2017. According to this article, the victims at first denied what had occurred. So there is more here than CMTV would like you to know.

So really, CMTV needs to improve its journalistic integrity and dig a little deeper instead of just picking parts of articles that seem to support their prejudice against the SSPX.

--- just some quick thoughts.

P^3

Comments

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog