SITE UPDATED: June 24, 2011 Seems there's a lot of brou ha ha over Fr. John Corapi. Here's what I have to say about the situation. I think Fr. Corapi has been unjustly accused of things he didn't do, unless it can be proven otherwise. I also think his decision to leave the priesthood is a stupid one. He SEEMS to think that his case should have been dealt with by now, and since it wasn't, he now SEEMS to be wanting to take his ball home since he didn't get his way as fast as he thought he should. Fr. Corapi should learn from history, something he seems to have forgotten he spoke about in one of his talks, how we don't learn from history... I think he should have a chat with the bishops of the SPPX and even Fr. Gruner, all of whom could give him advice on how to deal with his situation. Instead, he decides to walk away from the priesthood. If he was going to do that, then why waste the time and energy becoming a priest? Why did he even bother to pursue the vocation? I think he will find that many of his supporters are now questioning if he was the real deal he presented himself to be? I wonder if Father Corapi is recognizing the signs of demonic attack? What better way to get a dynamic preacher like him out of the way? We should pray for Fr. Corapi, that he may come to know and follow the Will of God for him, rather than the seeming desires of Fr. Corapi to have his own way, which is what his leaving the priesthood is about, at least in my opinion. I think that he should be prayed for, but he should no longer be financially supported until he returns to the priesthood. September 28, 2008 Updated the Catholic Links Page, removed some dead links and marked some for revival once I get the information together. September 17, 2008 Added a new article in the articles section below. DECEMBER 2, 2007 I wrote a short article in the next section below. You may not like it, but that's the way it goes. NOVEMBER 25, 2007 I have done a little updating of my Catholic Links page. As has been the case in the past, the vast majority of the links are to Catholic sites, though I do include a very few sites that are non-Catholic, as in they are not specifically Catholic, but are still useful. I have also added a link to a new page on my site on Christian Music, which can be accessed from my Main Page. NOVEMBER 11, 2007 Hello. It's been quite a while since I did any updating of my site, but I'm working on it again. So far I have done a little updating of my Catholic Links Page, weeding out some dead links and so forth. Some links I have left as is for now, but will get to them later. December 3, 2005 I removed the links on my links page to St. Benedict Center (New Hampshire group and their Saint Augustine Institute for Catholic Studies because they apparently have no concept of customer service. I also removed my link to Gerry Matatics site because, as far as I can tell, he has become a sede-vacantist. I have NOT been able to verify this from him yet, so this is not necessarily set in stone. October 27, 2005 I have changed my index1.html page to index.htm. In other words, it has been restored to being my main page. I have placed my disclaimer and Rest in Peace info at the bottom of my Main page. ALSO, new article below. October 20, 2005 I discovered that the All Roads Ministry Tract page is no longer online, though the All Roads Ministry webpage is still online. I found all but one article in the Internet Archive, and have placed them on one page, here: salbert.tripod.com/ARM_Tracts.htm I will update it on my links page soon. October 16, 2005 Updated some of the links on my Links Page October 12, 2005 New short article below. September 20, 2005 New short article below, and I fixed some of the links on my Links Page, as well as removed a few I was going to archive, but decided not to bother. September 16, 2005 I have updated my main page a bit. I have added my modesty article, which used to be on the main page a few years ago, and I also have a short article on modesty in the section below. May 14, 2005 New article in section below. February 14, 2005 New article in section below. February 2, 2005 I have updated my site a bit. I fixed a link on my main page, and removed a few dead links from my links page. I am currently working on another page which will hopefully be up within a month or 2, I also added a page linking to "Divine Intimacy", many of the meditations are available online. PetersNet/Trinity Communications I don't recommend this site any longer. It posted another review of the Una Voce website (www.unavoce.org) and gave it a 'C' rating for fidelity. Interesting in light of the fact that a website carrying the writings of Hans Urs von Balthasar, who PetersNet admits there is some controversy about whether he believed in hell or not, was given an 'A' rating for fidelity. If a person does not clearly state that he believes in hell, then he does not. Balthasar was a modernist, a proponent of what is known as the "New Theology". He was a modernist who taught things that were condemned by the Papal Encyclical 'Humani Generis' (Pope Pius XII, 1950). In addition, PetersNet, posted a reply from the EWTN forums that gives the same old tired attacks on Father Nicholas Gruner and his Fatima Apostolate. PetersNet seems to be a "magisterium" unto itself. It decides what websites are faithful to the Church or not, but on whose authority does it do so? I don't recall hearing about or seeing a Papal proclamation of any kind saying that it has been commissioned to do website reviews. Any website that doesn't gush total praise for the Novus Ordo and Vatican II cannot get a 'A' rating, but a website carrying the writings of a modernist heretic can. Beware of PetersNet, while it does have some good information, it is busy perpetuating the idea that if it comes from Rome, it must be infallible, even if it does not fit the definition.
September 17, 2008 Hello all, I know it's been a while since I updated but that happens at times. It seems that the "American Catholic Church" is (unfortunately) alive and well. Recently 2 men were arrested for passing out Pro-Life (and anti-Obama) fliers after a Sunday Mass at the Baltimore Basilica. It's so comforting to know that the priests and bishops that are sup- posed to be caring for us are usually the ones to stab us in the back. Frankly, I'm wondering when the so-called "Conservatives" in the Church are going to wake up and become as outraged about what these bishops and priests in this country who are too busy promoting the liberal agenda are doing as they are when some "Traditionalist" just wants to tell the truth about what's going on in the Church. If the so-called "Conservatives" were as on fire to do something about the liberals as they are to bitch about Traditionalists, the situation in the Church would be a lot better. You can read more about the arrest here: http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-0930-scandal_in_baltimore.htm Interestingly, the first place the story was published (as far as I can tell) was in the Canadian Free Press. On another note, there is a story about Cardinal Hoyos here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804705.htm Cardinal Hoyos is apparently not happy that Traditional Catholics aren't acting the way he thinks they should act, that is by just being happy with the little concession of Benedict XVI allowing the Latin Mass through "Summorum Pontificum". Well Cardinal Hoyos, if you happen to see this, here is what I have to say: Why should Traditional Catholics just be happy with the concession of having the Latin Mass? Were the liberals back in the 60's happy with just some changes in the Mass? No, they weren't, They wanted more, and more, and more. Tearing out the altars and replacing them with tables wasn't enough, no, they wanted Communion in the hand, and they got that too, then they wanted lay people to give out Communion, then they wanted Communion under both kinds for the laity, then they want- ed altar girls, and on and on and on. Traditional Catholics want what is theirs by RIGHT. It was no problem for the liberals to impose the Novus Ordo Mass on the people, the majority of whom never wanted the Mass changed to begin with, but now we should just sit back and shut up and be happy that Benedict XVI gave us a concession. Let me tell you something Cardinal, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The Novus Ordo is dying year after year, church attendance keeps falling, people stop believing which is no surprise, since what is their to believe in any more? Jesus is not even relevant to most Catholics any more, they don't even believe in the Real Presence anymore, and why should they, when His Body and Blood is treated worse than even ordinary food? Wake up Cardinal, the Traditional Catholics are the ones who are thriving, the FSSP has more vocations than they know what to do with, even the SSPX can't keep up. The Latin Mass, despite all attempts from the Vatican and liberal bishops in this country and others, has survived and is thriving, and most of the people attending aren't the people who grew up with the Latin Mass, it's younger people, people such as myself who were barely born when the Latin Mass was suppress- ed, and many more who are even younger than me, and I'm talking about people who weren't even thought of when I got out of high school. I've heard all the excuses, and the tired liberal "reasons" for not returning to the Latin Mass and the Traditional way, and it's all total bullshit, yes, I said bullshit. If you, and the rest of your kind living it up in the Vatican had a grip on reality, you would see that what is needed most is the FULL restoration of the Latin Mass and the Traditional way to every single Roman Rite parish in the world, and the full and total killing off of the Novus Ordo and all its attendant garbage. Hopefully that day will come soon, but I won't hold my breath. December 2, 2007 I realize many people won't like this very much. So be it. I am massively tired of hearing about "John Paul the Great". I was browsing EWTN to check out upcoming guests on "Life on the Rock" and the title of an upcoming show is "John Paul the Great and His Gener- ation." JP II was many things, but he was NOT great! Unless you count a great supporter of homosexual priests and and bishops. A great supporter of flaming liberals in general and bishops in particular, considering he himself appointed most of the liberal bishops who were responsible for the travesty of the sex scandal, and most of whom are still in their positions of power, and some of whom were basically promoted, by JP II himself! Some people say he was "great" because he traveled the world and preached the Gospel, my only question is, Which Gospel? The Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the gospel of liberalism and ecumenism? The answer to that is all too obvious. I agree he did do quite a few good things, but he generally did some- thing to negate the good. For example, he was very strong on his opp- osition to women priests, but then he turned around and approved "altar girls". And that is only one example of all to many. If you want to believe he was "great" oh well, I prefer to live in the REAL world. December 3, 2005 I read a very interesting article about Bishops in Poland and the Ukraine warning the faithful against the SSPX. The Greek Catholic Archbishop in the Ukraine joined with parish groups in some place called Janov in a "PRAYER MARCH" against the SSPX. I wish these bishops were on fire against the liberals and would hold "prayer marches" against the liberals and the homos and the child molesters and all the apostate priests, bishop, and Cardinals who seem more interested in screwing faithful Catholics out of their right to the Tridentine Mass. Biut oh no, that would mean "prayer marching against their buddies, and probably themselves. Yet another legacy of "the great" John Paul Paul II, supporter of Homosexuals and child molesters. http://thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/citw-#Europe October 27, 2005 It keeps getting better and better. Stephen Hand is at it again with a story that really takes the cake. From his website: http://tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html Thomas E. Woods and Robert Sungenis Investigated by Southern Poverty Law Center TCR was recently contacted out of the blue by an official of the Southern Poverty Law Center after a writer there got hold of a 2000 monograph, Traditionalists, Tradition and Private Judgement by this writer. The Center studies and writes scholarly exposes of cases of alleged 'hate' groups. Thomas Woods is a Harvard graduate and popular writer in extreme traditionalist circles on both political and theological matters. Officials there told TCR they were investigating Woods' association with what SPLC considers an extremist group, the League of the South and for his views stating John Paul II was a material heretic. Robert Sungenis, TCR was told, was being investigated for alleged "anti-semitism". NOTE: I think Hand has finally and totally flipped his lid. Hand is so utterly desperate to trash Traditionalists that he came up with this. Notice of course that he doesn't cite when the SPLC allegedly contacted him, or who. Notice also the alleged "association" with an "extremist" group accusation. Naturally Hand doesn't bother to give any details about this so-called "extremist" group, which frankly I never heard of. He also expects us to believe that the SPLC is investigating Robert Singenis for that tired old accusation of "anti-semitism." Yeah, O K.......... At least Hand had a moment of sanity and had the decency to use "alleged" in front of "anti-semitism". And on another note, also from the same page, Hand had this garbage to say: Intrgsim: The Financial Factor I remain a traditional Catholic to the core, as most know---but not a schismatic. Peter and the Creed is traditional Catholicism. Anyone who says he's a Catholic but attacks Peter on dogmatic grounds, is hardly traditional. He is anything but traditional.------ We oppose progressivism for the same reasons we oppose integrism. NOTE: "attacks Peter on dogmatic grounds", what does that mean? Another problem with the major Integrists is that their incomes and livelihood are often reportedly tied up in their attacks on the pope, sorely affecting their objectivity. Fr. Nicholas Gruner, for example, has reportedly taken in "millions of dollars" over the years attacking the Pope. And what of all the other persons and groups and publications appealing to the pocketbooks and wallets of others in the name of traditionalist Catholcism, even as they charges the popes with heresies? Who, besides TCR, has, for years, been calling for full financial disclosure from all these persons and groups which peddle schism? This must be investigated ---we say again. NOTE: Hand is right about one thing, maybe Fr. Gruner and other Traditionalists should disclose where their "millions" of dollars have gone. But I challenge Hand to stop being a total hypocrite and show us HIS financial statement. Better yet, Hand, let's see your tax returns for the last 5 years. Not to mention your bank state- ments, and let's see every single receipt for every thing YOU'VE purchased during that time. And if you're not willing to produce all this information, have the decency to keep your mouth shut. I've always wondered why Hand was in such a hurry to stab his former friends in the back, I mean literally, one day he was a solid Traditional Catholic, and the next he was screaming about "integrists" and "integrism." He was claiming anyone who didn't accept every utterance from the mouth of JP II was a "schismatic" and an "integrist", and less that 2 years later, Hand came out against celibacy for priests. He even had the audacity to post a link to the story about JP II re-affirming celibacy for priests, and on the very same page posting the link to a page on his site where he blatantly opposed celibacy for priests, as I documented elsewhere on my site. I think it's time Hand woke up and smelled the coffee. Hand is the REAL integrist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! October 12, 2005 There have been reports that the Vatican allegedly will allow homo- sexual men to become priests if they can prove they have been celib- ate for 3 years. If these reports are true, then they show that it's business as usual. I mean any homosexual man can demonstrate that he has been celibate, BECAUSE HE PROBABLY ISN'T MARRIED. DUH! The revolution continues!.............. September 20, 2005 There are news reports flying all over the 'Net about a document with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI banning ordination of homo- sexuals as priests coming out soon. Problem is, as one website so clearly pointed out, there was a ban on that back in the days of John XXIII, and what happened? The usual. The liberals didn't care then, and they don't care now, and they won't care later. But the so-called "conservatives" will fall all over themselves in hysterics about how Pope Benedict is doing something about the crisis in the Church, when in fact, he's doing the same as his predecessor, a whole lot of talk, and no real action. Oh, what about the Vatican sending people over to check out the seminaries? I seem to recall that was done before, sev- eral years back, in fact I think Michael S. Rose mentioned it in his excellent book "Goodbye Good Men". The Vatican visitors found out a lot about the real state of the seminaries that time, didn't they? As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is nothing more than the usual smokescreen to make it look like something is being done, while letting the status quo continue. September 16, 2005 Updated Sept. 18, 2005 I am going to write a little about modesty, something that seems to be forgotten about a lot in this day and age. I'm no saint, and I'm not going to lie and say that I have never once looked at a woman with less than honorable thoughts, because that would be b.s. However, I would like to say that, when it comes down to the wire, I prefer to see women modestly dressed, especially in Church. Not too long ago, a woman of my acquaintance who, at work (she's a librarian) generally wears long dresses, and sometimes pants, recently went to Sunday Mass in a mini-skirt. I absolutely couldn't believe it. I was shocked. Now, she's an attractive woman, probably in her 40's, who should know better. I can guarantee, no guy who saw her was thinking, "YO BABY, I'd love to take her home and say the Rosary with her!" Frankly, I'm not sure what she was thinking going to Church dressed like that. I know a lot of women try to excuse the way they dress, but I have to wonder if they would show up to meet a famous person dressed like that? I wonder what women would think if they could literally read men's minds, you know, like Mel Gibson could read women's minds in that movie "What Women Want"? MMMmmmm.................. Or better yet, I wonder if they'd dress like that if Jesus were to show up somewhere in the flesh as He did when He lived on earth, if they would go to see him wearing a mini-skirt? Of course, since they do it now just going to Church, I'm sure many would. The message here is simple. Modesty in dress is important, and if you don't think so, perhaps you should read up on the topic "near occasion of sin" in any good Catholic Catechism, and heed what it says. And if you are going to continue to dress immodestly, then please have the honesty to stop going to confession and Holy Communion, since by dressing immodestly you are committing a serious sin, and by not confessing it, you are doing nothing less than committing a sac- rilege.
June 21, 2005 I noticed Hand is once again proving who the real "integrist". On his "Musings" page, he's whining about how Catholicculture.org changed the rating for his website because of, well read for yourself: "Hand has effectively dogmatized his opinions on issues such as the death penality, the war in Iraq, and economic issues. (touching on Fidelity). We've never changed our views on these matters, and certainly do not "dogmatize" our views on them simply by agreeing with the prudential teachings of JPII and Benedict XVI over the imprudential opinions of the Neo-con groupies on all these issues ----so what is different now? http://www.tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html You can read the rest of Hand's whining on that page. Today, it's the 13th headline down the page. I get a kick out of Hand trying to hide behind "prudential teachings" of John Paul II. Gee, it wasn't so long ago when Walter Matt and his fellow Traditionalists brought into question certain "prudential teachings" of John Paul II, that Hand went into major tizzy, and star- ted screming "integrist" and "schismatic"!!!!!!! Condemning them on a daily basis for months, and taking potshots at them at least once a month ever since. Hand, you have reaped what you have sown, and it's about time! Gee, everythings groovy when you're "in" isn't it? But then comes the time when you aren't. Spend less time bashing faithful Catholics, and more time living the Faith you love to about and maybe you'll gwt somewhere. June 14, 2005 Surprise, surprise, Stephen Hand is at it again. I guess things have been pretty slow in his world of late. He is calling for, get this, a boycott of Tan Books. The reason? Because Tan publishes and promotes books by "Atila Guimaraes a man who has spent years saying John Paul II is a material heretic." Naturally of course, Hand doesn't bother to cite sources, as usual. And the other reason? "but Mr. Nelson's business reportedly supports and promotes views rejecting Vatican II and the Popes since Vatican II." Ah, the usual, overused, and tired excuses. But I get a kick out of Hand's use of "reportedly". Well, Hand, don't you know if Nelson does in fact do that or not? Yes or no? Spare us from more of your diatribes, Mr. Hand. Those of us who live in the REAL world, the world where the "great" JP II, supporter of homosexual bishops and priests, and friend to those want to see the Church destroyed, is seen for what he really was, already see you for what you are. The REAL "INTEGRIST". BTW, Hand's little diatribe can be found here: http://www.tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html May 14, 2005 I have a few comments concerning things going on in the Vatican. 1st, I'd like to applaud Pope Benedict XVI for getting rid of Reese, S.J, of America magazine. One heretic down and way too many to go. On the other hand, following the schizophrenic ways of his predecessor he appointed Bishop Levada as head of the CDF. Levada is one of the most notorious of those homosexual supporting bishops, who not only left his old diocese in a shambles, he even brought in and promoted sex-ed in his new diocese. I guess it's business as usual, just like under the "great" JP II. And of course Benedict XVI wants to put his predecessor on the "fast track" to canonization! As far as I am concerned, any hope there was of things getting better went out the window. Benedict XVI is not the "savior" of the Church some would like to make him out to be. He is going to continue the revolution. WAKE UP PEOPLE! February 14, 2005 No doubt you have heard that Sister Lucia of Fatima died yesterday at the age of 97. May she rest in peace, and may her intercession bring about the conversion and the Consecration of Russia so there will be peace in the world. There are already some stirrings of keeping the "Russia was consecra- ted in 1984" alive. Though even the Pope's own words to the contrary still have little weight with those who are more interested in pushing the revised Fatima than the real Fatima. However, I wonder what is going to happen now that she is gone. We should consider that since her mission is now over (on this earth anyway), that maybe we should take this as a sign that we should be ready for anything. I'm not say- ing that the world is ending, I am saying that we should take this as a further sign that the time of Mercy may be growing short, and we should prepare ourselves spiritually for the coming days, weeks, or years ahead. Prayer, repentance, penance, and good works are in order. February 3, 2005 Yesterday I was checking out TCR (Stephen Hand's website) and noticed he was screaming "integrist" again, but today I saw something that needs commenting on even more: http://www.tcrnews2.com/musingsTCR7.html Papal Theologian Weighs Condom Use Against AIDS "Cardinal Cottier is the highest-ranking official at the Vatican to suggest that the use of condoms could be justified. But he emphasized that he was giving his own "strictly personal" opinion, and not speaking for the Holy See." Obviously a good idea reflecting common sense and we hope it wins official approval. IF THAT ISN'T ENOUGH PROOF THAT HAND IS THE REAL "INTEGRIST" AND THE ONE WHO IS TRULY SCHISMATIC, THEN NOTHING ELSE IS. THE CHURCH HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNED ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL AS INTRINSIC- ALLY EVIL, (NO LESS THAN HAND'S HERO JPII SAID SO). HAND IS SHOWING, ONCE AGAIN, HIS TRUE COLORS AS THE ONE WHO IS TRULY AGAINST THE POPE. September 18, 2004 A Catholic mother takes on 'no-fault' divorce http://www.cruxnews.com/articles/parejko-17sept04.html I had seen something about Bud MacFarlane, Jr., famed Catholic novel- ist, leaving his wife, but didn't realize it happened last year. I don't know exactly what happened, but I find it interesting that a guy who could write a novel like "Conceived without Sin", which dealt in large part with marriage, could just up and walk out on his wife & kids. Whatever problems they may have been having, he should have worked them out. Wherever he is, I hope he comes to his senses and gets it together. September 14, 2004 (revised on the 18th) I'd like to bring attention to a good article by Jacob Michael which can be found here: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Sep/sep3fcs.htm He brings up several good points, the greatest of which is this: What are we going to DO about the crisis in the Church? He lists a few good things to do, but I'd like to add a few things. I think that what we Traditional Catholics need to do is spend more time in prayer generally, but more specifically, we need to spend more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, and more time praying the Rosary, period. Many Trads spend time reading books & magazines & newspapers that detail the crisis, but what good does that do? Heck, I've done the same, and there are some books I'd still like to read, but the bottom line is: What good is that going to do? I think we need to stop reading, and jetting to conferences, and buying tapes about the crisis, and actually get down to business. I think what we need to do is read books that will help us lead a better spiritual life. For instance, "All for Jesus" by Fr. Frederick Faber is an excellent book, which gives many ideas and principles to live a rich and healthy spiritual life, and also has things that can help us to make reparation for our own sins and the sins of the world. Another book I think is excellent is "Spiritual Secrets of a Trappist Monk", this is excellent in explaining what the spiritual life is about. There are others that can be of much use as well. Let's face it, most of us are all too familiar with the crisis, its causes & effects, and that's fine, but this knowledge isn't solving the problem. The Pope isn't going to do his duty any time soon: he isn't going to get rid of the apostate bishops, he isn't going to stop "dialogueing" with heretics & schismatics & pagans, he isn't going to punish the bishops who protect homosexual priests & pedophile priests, and on and on. The "conservatives" are going to continue attacking us at every turn, and they are going to continue to help the liberals in their quest to destroy the Church by claiming to defend the Pope and Church while at the same time trying to stop the thing the liberals fear most: The Faithful Traditional Catholic, who, armed with the Traditional Mass & Sacraments, and the Rosary is that which the liberals and their master the devil fear the most. I think it's time Traditional Catholics stopped spending their money on books, magazines, newspapers & tapes that detail the crisis and do something truly constructive. For instance, I propose something like this: Start with something simple, like praying a Divine Mercy Chaplet, one decade each for each bishop who was involved in the sex scandal. Just one Chaplet for 5 bishops, and continue until you have prayed one decade of the Chaplet for each of them, then start the cycle all over. That is, pray one Chaplet per day for these bishops. I will post their names on a special page for this purpose in the near future. Another thing to do, would be to offer a Holy Communion in reparation for these bishops, one at a time, until you have received 1 for each. Start with the Pope for his lack of action during the scandal. Spending some time in prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament is another good thing. If you do so now, great, spend some more, say another 15 minutes, then work your way up to an (or another) hour. Most of us are familiar with the 5 First Fridays & Saturdays. Well, how about offering Holy Communion, Rosary, (or other prayers) on the First Sunday in reparation for the sins of the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests & Deacons, specifically for those who do not live up to their vocation and their duties. Also, or alternatively, why not offer the 2nd Friday or Saturday, (or 3rd or 4th) of the month for this purpose? Another good article on this subject (with good ideas) is available here: http://www.catholictradition.org/why.htm Excellent reading and advice. February 5, 2004 Again, Stephen Hand is on the attack, here's the latest: http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR3.html Robert Sungenis, Karl Keating and Sad Ad Hominems This will have to be the last post on this matter of Integrism for a good while as it bores me to death. INTERESTING. IS HAND FINALLY COMING TO THE REALIZATION THAT HIS LIFE AND LOVE OF SLANDER ISN'T HAVING THE EFFECT IT ONCE WAS? MAYBE PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO READ AND RESEARCH FOR THEMSELVES, AND SEEING THAT HE IS SPENDING MORE TIME SPREADING LIES AND DISSENT THAN TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH. THING IS, WHY IS HE GETTING BORED? AFTER ALL, HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED ALL THIS "INTEGRIST" GARBAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. In a previous post in this section we related what Karl Keating reported regarding Gerry Matatics to some people on an e-list he runs over at Catholic Answers. Keating and Matatics attended an event apparently sponsored by some disciples of Fr. Feeney and Keating asked if the (apparent) instances of obsessive anti-semitism reflected in some of Fr. Leonard Feeney's early publications was a thing of the past. Gerry Matatics, according to Keating went ballistic. Very sad stuff all around. INDEED, VERY SAD STUFF ALL AROUND, AND WHAT'S EVEN SADDER IS THAT HAND SIMPLY POSTED THE STORY ON HIS WEBSITE, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF THAT IT WAS TRUE. DID HAND CONTACT GERRY MATATICS FOR HIS SIDE OF THE STORY? DID HE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A VIDEO OR AUDIO COPY OF THE TALK AT WHICH THIS INCIDENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE? DID HE EVEN CALL ANYONE AT ALL WHO WAS AT THAT CONFERENCE? SLOPPY WORK FOR SOMEONE WHO SUPPOSEDLY WORKS IN A LAW OFFICE. But now enters Robert Sungenis who fell from the heights of EWTN to the vortex of incoherent anti-papal Integrism. In a weird piece he did on the matter he refers to his little "snoopers" and a volley of hearsay.... MMMmmm....VOLLEY OF HEARSAY? INTERESTING, SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAND HAS BEEN RELYING ON FOR YEARS IN HIS QUEST TO CONDEMN HIS FORMER FRIENDS......... ALSO, UNLIKE HAND, WHO RARELY REFERS HIS READERS TO THE FULL ORIGINAL SOURCE FOR ANYTHING HE WRITES, HERE IS WHERE YOU CAN READ SUNGENIS' ARTICLE: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/KeatingsGospel.asp "My little snoopers tell me that he (Karl Keating) and James Akin are often at odds, and that because of the tension they keep their offices on opposite sides of the complex. Patrick Madrid, after he left Catholic Answers, used to tell me all kinds of hair-raising stories about Karl�s antics. After eight years under Karl�s thumb Madrid�s exact words were: 'I couldn�t wait to get out of there.'" "I had a taste of Karl�s idiosyncracies, too. When I applied for a job at Catholic Answers in 1993, Madrid confirmed to me that I was not hired because, contrary to Karl�s wishes, I dared to put �soy sauce on my rice� when Karl took me out to lunch. After finding out what a tyrant he could be, I was glad I didn�t get hired. Madrid�s main complaint was that Karl thought he was better than everyone else, and treated his employees as if they were chattel." Then there is the obligatory plug for Matatics' "ministry" (why not? he's the "preacher" for them all, all the contradictory pope-bashing sects he plugs everywhere, even schismatics) to which he called himself: NOTICE THE SNIPING OF GERRY MATATICS, AND THE IMPLICATION THAT MATA- TICS "PLUGS" "ALL THE CONTRADICTORY POPE-BASHING SECTS." FIRST, HAND NEVER MENTIONS HOW MANY GERRY MATATICS TALKS HE HAS ATTENDED, NOR DOES HE MENTION HOW MANY TAPES OF GERRY'S TALKS HE HAS LISTENED TO. HE LISTS NO DATES OR LOCATIONS OF TALKS HE ATTENDED, NOR DOES HE LIST ANY TAPE TITLES AND DATES OF WHEN THE TALKS TOOK PLACE, BUT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT ON THE WORD OF A BACKSTABBER AND SLANDERER THAT MATATICS "PLUGS ALL THE CONTRADICTORY POPE-BASHING SECTS EVERYWHERE." AGAIN, VERY SLOPPY FOR A GUY WHO SUPPOSEDLY WORKS IN A LAW OFFICE. "I kept thinking: here is Gerry Matatics, father of ten, trying to be a faithful Catholic to tradition, especially with regards to contraception, raising his children on an income of perhaps a wee bit over $50,000/year, an income that he must generate by himself, year after year, and do so by setting up his own trail of seminars in various parts of the country..." This is pitiful in the extreme. Soy sauce, huh? Look, I do not doubt that Karl Keating can be difficult. He is only human. He has not been particularly friendly to me. But, so what? He is correct on the substance of Catholic doctrine and that makes him an angel in my eyes and worthy of the support of all Catholics if his bishop sees fit to endorse his work. How a person treats us is not the criterion for orthodoxy, even if the allegations were true (which I doubt). MMMmmm... INTERESTING. HE DOUBT THAT SUNGENIS'S ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE, BUT WHY? SIMPLE, HAND ANSWERED THE QUESTION EARLIER, BECAUSE SUNGEN- IS "fell from the heights of EWTN to the vortex of incoherent anti- papal Integrism." SO NOW, ANYTHING SUNGENIS SAYS IS AUTOMATICALLY SUSPECT AND IS TREATED AS EITHER A LIE, OR OF NO IMPORTANCE. BUT KEATING, WHO HAS MADE A VIRTUAL SIDE LIVING OUT OF TRASHING GERRY MATATICS, IS TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT QUESTION BECAUSE HE "is correct on the substance of Catholic doctrine.....and worthy of the support of all Catholics if his bishop sees fit to endorse his work." IN OTHER WORDS, KEATING IS A PARAGON OF VIRTUE REGARDLESS OF HIS EGO, AND SUNGENIS IS JUST AN "INTEGRIST" WHO SHOULD BE IGNORED. I remain a traditional Roman Catholic to this day --- see below --- but not an Integrist. I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE USE THIS LINE. THEY MAKE A VIRTUAL LIVING OFF TRASHING "TRADITIONALISTS" BUT THEN PROCLAIM THEMSELVES TO BE "TRAD- ITIONALISTS, BUT NOT INTEGRISTS." OF COURSE HAND IS GOING TO SAY HE'S NOT AN "INTEGRIST", HE WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE WHOLE MESS OF ACCUSING PEOPLE OF "INTEGRISM" IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! BUT AS I HAVE SHOWN ELSEWHERE, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IN FACT IS AN "INTEGRIST." I learned there was a critical difference and it increasingly disturbed me. For some it's like a lobster slowly cooking in the boiling pot. One starts out just wanting to attend a Latin Mass. Then comes the literature rack and "father" ....then....and it's a whispering campaign against anyone who breaks ranks. You've never seen bile until you've seen Integrist bile as the above shows again. AND YOU'VE NEVER SEEN BILE UNTIL YOU READ HAND'S "TRADITIONALIST" BASHING WRITINGS, NOT TO MENTION KEATINGS. It's all down to a predictable progression (or reversion) by now. Thank God, most catch on and leave over time. Some, alas, become cynical about all things Catholic. Just try to find that most militant first graduating class of seminary priests who graduated, after long years, from Lefebvre's hothouse.... MMMmmm...HAS HAND EVER ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO ANY OF THESE PEOPLE? One of my closest, older, friends to this day, however, is an Integrist; he stays over the house every 1st Wednesday of the month ... tonight, as I write this. I make him dinner and breakfast, we laugh, talk literature, philosophy, the news of the day. We never argue, though we both write differently of our convictions. But the leaders and celebrities.... INTERESTING. I FIND THAT VERY INTERESTING. HAND LEADS A VICIOUS CAMPAIGN OF SLANDER AGAINST FAITHFUL CATHOLICS, ONE OF WHOM IS A CLOSE FRIEND OF HIS, AND HE STILL INVITES THIS MAN TO HIS HOUSE??? Sungenis turns this latest spectacle now into a fundraiser for Matatics and says "...Matatics, father of ten, trying to be a faithful Catholic to tradition..." WHAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE? DOES THE TRUTH HURT? OR IS IT JEALOUSY? NO DOUBT THAT HAND WOULD LOVE TO JOIN THE CIRCUIT HIMSELF, BUT DUE TO CERTAIN PERSONAL REASONS I WON'T MENTION HERE, HE CAN'T. IT MUST EAT HIM UP, THE LOST OPPORTUNITIES TO CHARGE 4 FIGURE SPEAKING FEES, AND THE IMMENSE PERSONAL GRATIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO SPREAD HIS SLANDER IN PERSON...... What tradition except his own private judgement and tastes which he employs in business against the Holy Father! AGAIN, HAND DOES NOT STATE WHAT MATATICS SAYS THAT IS AGAINST THE FATHER, NOR DOES HE CITE THE RELEVANT CHURCH TEACHING THAT MATATICS IS ALLEGED TO OPPOSE. Keating deserves more than hearsay punishment from a man whose reciprocal publicity benefits both himself and his friend, Mr. Matatics (all publicity is good publicity, often enough, to these radtrad "leaders," quiet makes them very nervous); NOW YOU GET TO SEE JUST HOW INCONSISTENT HAND REALLY IS. DID HE NOT TITLE THIS ARTICLE, "Robert Sungenis, Karl Keating and Sad Ad Hominems"? AND THEN HE HIMSELF ENGAGES IN THE VERY THING THAT HE CLAIMS SUNGENIS IS DOING? TYPICAL HAND. NOT TO MENTION THAT EVERY TIME HAND ATTACKS GERRY MATATICS, KEATING HAS TO GET IN ON THE ACTION AS WELL AS VICE-VERSA. both Matatics and Sungenis consider the Pope a heretic (!) and yet still call themselves "Catholics" without blushing. REALLY? PERHAPS, MR. HAND WOULD CARE TO PRODUCE PROOF OF THIS. AGAIN, HE MAKES AN ACCUSATION, BUT DOES NOT BACK IT UP WITH ANY PROOF, JUST LIKE HIS HERO KEATING. They're both High-Church protestants, if you ask me. There's not a dime's worth of essential difference, except that contemporary protestants have much more excuse. They inherited the Reformation, they didn't start it. Personally, and along other lines, I'm getting tired of lay-run preaching "ministries" (who appoint themselves and work without approval of any bishop) which entangle the Gospel with personal business and the need for publicity. YET, HAND, AT LEAST UNTIL NOW, NEVER SEEMED TO TIRE OF "PUBLICITY" FOR BASHING GERRY MATATICS AND OTHER FAITHFUL CATHOLICS. NOT TO MENTION, HAND NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS ELSEWHERE ABOUT WHO "SENT" HIM TO SPREAD HIS SLANDER, OR WHO "SENT" KARL KEATING TO DO WHAT HE DOES. It smacks of Jim and Tammy to me (ever hear Matatics' prophecies and scare tactics about Y2K? Jeeesh!), whether high or low church is the preference. This is more than a simple author going on a book tour. WHAT DOES "MATATICS' PROPHECIES AND SCARE TACTICS ABOUT Y2K HAVE TO WITH ANYTHING? AFTER ALL, IF Y2K HAD OCCURED, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THIS WHOLE "INTEGRIST" GARBAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! AND WHO KNEW FOR SURE THAT THERE WASN'T SOMETHING TH THE Y2K DEAL, IT'S EASY TO LAUGH NOW, BUT WHAT IF IT HAD TAKEN PLACE? TCR receives very, very, little in the way of donations (for ink cartridges and the like), we work real jobs for a living while health permits, we solicit no advertising and only barter service. If an Angel came to TCR and offered us $50,000 to show off all over the land, I'd think it was the devil. A bishop had better "send" me (with at least tacit approval) or I'm staying put! Celebrity is a temptation, not a calling. God doesn't need any of us, no matter what an ego suggests. YET NOTICE HOW HAND NEVER BACKED AWAY FROM THE "FAME" HIS SCANDALOUS ACCUSATIONS BROOUGHT HIM. THE FREE PUBLICITY HE GOT OUT OF THE WANDERER, THE NOTERIETY OF HAVING BISHOP FABIAN BRUSKEWITZ WRITE AN INTRODUCTION TO HIS SCREED IN 2000, OH NO, HAND NEVER CRAVED FAME. THAT'S WHY WHEN HE LEFT THE REMNANT, HE SIMPLY WENT TO THE HIDDEN LIFE HE'S BEEN LEADING. HE HAS NO EGO, HE JUST SPENTS 3 YEARS BRING- ING US THE MESSAGE THAT HE IS SOME KIND OF FINAL ARBITER OF WHO IS AND WHO ISN'T A FAITHFUL CATHOLIC, OUT OF HIS UNDYING, UNSELFISH LOVE FOR SOULS........... DON'T COUNT ON HAND BOWING OUT SO SOON, HE WON'T. SOONER OR LATER ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WILL ARISE TO BASH GERRY MATATICS, ROBERT SUNGEN- IS, AND HIS FORMER FRIENDS, AND HE WILL JUMP AT IT. IN THE MEANTIME, CONTACT HAND FOR THE PROOF OF HIS ACCUSATIONS, AND GOOD LUCK GETTING IT FROM HIM......... February 3, 2004 Stephen Hand is at it again, of course. Here is a short article he wrote criticizing Mel Gibson: http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR2.html If Mel Gibson's Movie Has Power... This much anticipated movie will be grand to the extent that it is faithful to the Gospels. It is this passion narrative which will be the power which grasps us, if faithfully rendered . A lot of Church and political tensions are going on around the man, Mel Gibson, whom we at TCR have called to take advantage of this opportunity to reconnect to Peter, and thus the visible Church on earth, even as we support his great undertaking. NOTE HERE THE IMPLICATION THAT GIBSON IS A "SCHISMATIC". THIS IS 1 THING THAT HAS BEEN OVERPLAYED TO THE POINT OF NAUSEA. THE THING I FIND INTERESTING IS THAT RAYMOND ARROYO OF EWTN HAS INTERVIEWED GIBSON TWICE, BUT APPARENTLY NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK GIBSON ABOUT WHERE HE STANDS IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH. NO, OF COURSE NOT, THAT WOULD HAVE SETTLED THE MATTER ONCE AND FOR ALL, AND OF COURSE WOULD HAVE SHOWN UP PEOPLE LIKE HAND WHO HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN BASH "TRADIT- IONALISTS." Many conservatives have reflexively been writing exclusively from Mel's perspective (the director's persecutions, flu, the NYT, the actor's trials....and have neglected to consider what will be the basis for this movie's true power, not to mention Mel's opposition to the Petrine Church which he can and must overcome in this opportunity) and may be missing a critical point. If Mr. Gibson reconnects with Peter then, together, we can face the Church's true foes: AGAIN HAND IMPLIES THAT GIBSON IS "SCHISMATIC", WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANTIATION. ALSO HAND NOW GOES ON TO LIST THE CHURCH'S "TRUE FOES". all abuses and neglect in local churches, neo-modernism, OK, SO FAR SO GOOD integrist privatized religion, NOW WHAT DOES THIS MEAN EXACTLY, ASIDE FROM IT BEING ANOTHER SWIPE AT ALL "TRADITIONALISTS"? I FIND THIS ONE INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY COM- ING FROM A MAN WHO MAKES IT A POINT TO CONDEMN ANY AND ALL "TRADITIO- NALISTS" WHO DON'T FOLLOW EVERY UTTERANCE FROM THE MOUTH OF JOHN PAUL II AS THOUGH THEY WERE INFALLIBLE STATEMENTS, YET HAND PROCLAIMS THAT HE THINKS CELIBACY FOR PRIESTS "SHOULD BE DISCUSSED" AND "IS PROVEN NOT TO BE WORKING", AND THIS AFTER THE POPE REAFFIRMED CELIBACY FOR PRIESTS! TALK ABOUT "INTEGRIST PRIVATIZED RELIGION"! poverty, wars, and an aching, hurting humanity in general greatly in need of the Church's teachings on social justice. DEFINITELY CHURCH FOES. BUT WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE HAND WHO OUT OF ONE SIDE OF THEIR MOUTHS PROCLAIM "LOYALTY" TO THE POPE, AND CONDEMN "TRADITIONALISTS" AS BEING PEOPLE WHO DISOBEY THE POPE, AND OUT OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH PROCLAIM THEIR PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE POPE ON CERTAIN MATTERS WHILE NOT INFALLIBLE, NEVERTHELESS OF LONG- STANDING TRADITION, AND WHICH THE POPE HAS DECLARED WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE CHURCH? HAND IS A TYPICAL HYPOCRITE. IF "TRADITIONALISTS" DISAGREE WITH THE POPE, THEY ARE "INTEGRISTS" WHO MUST CONDEMNED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, BUT IF PEOPLE LIKE HAND DISAGREE WITH THE POPE, THEN THEY ARE JUST "EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS AS CATHO- LICS." Meanwhile, Carol O'Reilly summed things up beautifully when she said to me, "Ah, controversy... My hope now is simply this: That folks will go to their Ash Wednesday services before dashing out to see the film!!" Aye! ---Stephen Hand MMMmmm.....ASH WEDNESDAY "SERVICES". WHAT HAPPENED TO ASH WEDNESDAY MASS? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I will comment on another article from this same page of Hand's site: Who Are the Real Traditionalists? The reductio ad absurdum of Integrism is their failure (often deliberate and tied into the ways they ---the leaders--- make their livings, I'm afraid) to recognize that "submission to the Roman Pontiff" is the first principle of traditional Catholicism. The second principle for a Catholic rejects all private interpretation of tradition or dogma. FIRST, HAND TRIES TO DISPARAGE "TRADITIONALISTS" FOR "FAILURE TO REC- OGNIZE THAT 'SUBMISSION TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF' IS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLICISM." OK, LET'S CHECK OUT HAND'S RECORD OF "SUBMISSION TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF". http://www.tcrnews2.com/celibacy.html THE BOTTOM LINE OF HAND'S ARGUMENT IS THAT HE BELIEVES THAT MORE MARRIED MEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE PRIESTHOOD, EXACTLY WHAT THE LIBERALS WANT. HOWEVER THE POPE DOES NOT WANT THAT, YET HAND OUT OF ONE SIDE OF HIS MOUTH PROCLAIMS HIS LOYALTY TO THE POPE, WHILE OUT THE OTHER SIDE HE IS ADVOCATING FOR THE SAME THING THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH WANT. HAND REFUSES TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE HIMSELF, BUT CONDEMNS "TRADITIONALISTS" FOR SUPPOSEDLY NOT SUBMITTING TO THE POPE. YET, IT IS THE "TRADITIONALISTS" WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF CELIBACY AND NOT ALLOW- ING MARRIED PRIESTS. MMMmmm......... SECOND, HAND DECLARES THAT CATHOLICS REJECT ALL PRIVATE INTERPRETAT- ION OF TRADITION AND DOGMA. TRUE, BUT YET HAND SETS HIMSELF UP AS A JUDGE OF WHO IS NOT "SUBMITTING" TO THE POPE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME FAILING TO SUBMIT TO THE POPE ON CELIBACY HIMSELF. When I saw how they all break off into rival splinter sects, I knew increasingly something was gravely wrong. The need for a Pope to checkmate error was more evident in their circles than without. They revealed themselves as true pseudo-traditionalists, however much they may foam. NOTICE THAT HAND CONDEMNS ALL "TRADITIONALISTS" PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER. I GRANT THERE ARE SOME REAL "PSEUDO-TRADITIONALISTS" OUT THERE, BUT HAND DOESN'T ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEM. IF YOU DON'T SHARE HAND'S VIEW OF THE CHURCH, THEN YOU ARE WRITTEN OF AS AN "INTEGRIST". We are the (true) traditionalists (though not integrists) as any liberal-progressive would attest (we submit to the Roman Pontiff, accept the creed, and accept that any true understanding of tradition cannot be by way of private judgement, but only mediated through the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.) HAND REALLY SHOWS JUST HOW FAR OFF THE DEEP END HE HAS GONE. HE REL- IES ON THE TESTIMONY OF ENEMIES TO PROVE THAT HE AND HIS KIND ARE THESE SO-CALLED "TRUE TRADITIONALISTS." You can take the following to the bank (and take a look at who's saying it, no juridical pronouncements and private judgement relative to dogma for her): St. Catherine of Siena wrote to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan, on the Pope and Obedience to Him: "He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don�t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don�t trust the demon: don�t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28)." VERY INTERESTING. BUT YET HAND HIMSELF REFUSES TO HEED THIS VERY ADVICE. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ January 29, 2004 After taking way too much time to update, I'm now going to do so. First, where to start: Well, let's start with the recent "e-letter" of Karl Keating dated January 13, 2004, "FR. FEENEY AND THE JEWS", in which he decides to take a shot at Fr. Feeney. It can be read at: http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp Naturally, St. Benedict Center replied to this screed, their response can be found here: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/Reply_to_KK1.htm My comment on this is that I find it interesting that Keating decided to attack Fr. Feeney and his followers again. Not surprised, but I find it interesting. The one common denominator of all those who att- ack Fr. Feeney is this: All of them claim that he taught a "rigorist" interpretation of a 3 times infallibly declared dogma, but rarely do his attackers ever quote Fr. Feeney directly. They usually rely on the writings of people who denied on one level or another these dogmas. That said, I think Keating needs to spend more time doing what he is best at, apologetics, instead of setting himself up as one of the final arbiters of what Fr. Feeney taught (or didn't teach). 2nd, Stephen Hand is at it again, thanks to Karl. On Hand's site on Jan. 28, he devotes a short article to attacking Gerry Matatics based on an "e-letter" sent out by Karl. You can read Hands attack here: http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR2.html And below, with my comments, after which I will place the full text of the "e-letter" here and comment. There may be some overlap in my comm- ents. Here goes: Gerry Matatics' Multi-Dimensional Confusions, Temper, and Karl Keating Gerry Matatics, a convert who called himself to the integrist evangelism circuit with other very far out critics of JPII and the Second Vatican Council, and who is known for publicly begging tens of thousand dollars from the good people who fall for their patchwork Mr. Potato Head type imitation of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, has apparently been decompensating even further, theologically and tempermentally, of late. NOTICE THE NAME CALLING AND IMPLICATION THAT MATATICS DOES WHAT HE DOES TOTALLY ON HIS OWN, WITH NO POSSIBILITY THAT HE WAS CALLED BY GOD TO DO SO. AS PER THE POINT I MADE IN OTHER CRITIQUES OF HAND, WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO START UP HIS APOLOGETICS APOSTOLATE? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO HIRE GERRY MATATICS TO WORK FOR HIM BACK IN THE EARLY 90'S AND THEN DUMP HIM WHEN HE STARTED TO REALLY INVESTIGATE WHAT THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS ALL ABOUT? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO START A CAMPAIGN TO VILLIFY AND SMEAR MATATICS FOR OVER A DECADE WITH SLANDER & LIBEL? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO BLOCK EVERY EFFORT BY MATATICS TO "CLEAR" HIS NAME? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO TRASH MATATICS EVERY CHANCE HE HAD? WHO "CALLED" KEATING TO NOT PUBLISH AN INTERVIEW HE HAD WITH MATATICS IN THE LATE 90'S WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN FOR ALL TIME THAT KEATING WAS USING HIS POSITION OF TRUST AND POWER TO BULLY ONE MAN? AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WHO "CALLED" STEPHEN HAND TO STAB HIS FRIENDS IN THE BACK AND TRY TO MAKE A LIVING VILLIFYING AND SMEARING FAITHFUL CATHOLICS BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO SEE AND TELL THE TRUTH? IF HAND IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT A "CALL", THEN I THINK HAND SHOULD BE HONEST AND TAKE DOWN HIS WEBSITE, AND STOP SPILLING HIS VENOM AND HATRED OUT THERE, WHERE THERE IS ALREADY FAR TOO MUCH. BUT OF COURSE, HAND WON'T. HE WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO IF HE WASN'T TRASHING SOMEONE. AND AS FOR MATATICS BEING KNOWN FOR BEGGING FOR "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS", WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? DOESN'T KEATING DO THE SAME THING? DOESN'T JUST ABOUT EVERY "Conservative Catholic" ENTITY DO THE SAME? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM HAND? WISH YOU COULD GO OUT ON THE CIRCUIT AND RAKE IN MONEY LIKE KEATING? LET'S FACE IT, KEATING DOESN'T TRAVEL ALL OVER THE COUNTRY GIVING TALKS FOR NOTHING, HE WANTS A 4 FIGURE FEE FOR COMING TO YOUR AREA............. In a recent e-letter from Karl Keating, the respected Catholic apologist and founder of Catholic Answers who analyses cults and cult theology both within and without the Church, RESPECTED? WHY? BECAUSE KEATING PRETENDS TO BE CONCERNED FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS, BUT SEEMS MORE INTERESTED IN TRASHING GERRY MATATICS, AND THOSE DASTARDLY "FEENEYITES"? Keating writes of a meeting he and Matatics apparently both attended in San Diego where Matatics made a spectacle of himself and ended yelling at Keating "at the top of his lungs". It all goes back to an e-letter which Keating sent out in which he sought clarifications regarding the apparent anti-semitism of at least the early followers of Fr. Feeney. KEATING SOUGHT "CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING THE APPARENT ANTI-SEMITISM OF AT LEAST THE EARLY FOLLOWERS OF FR. FEENEY"???? REALLY? THEN WHY DIDN'T HE CONTACT THE NEW HAMPSHIRE ST. BENEDICT CENTER AND ASK THEM? NO, OF COURSE NOT, HE COULDN'T DO THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THAT HE LISTEN TO THOSE HE SOUGHT TO ATTACK AND VILLIFY, AND QUITE POSSI- BLY REALLY COME TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THE VIEWPOINT OF THE "FEENEY- ITES" AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. IF IT DID, THEN KEATING WOULD BE SHOWN TO BE THE LIBERAL THAT HE IS. "In that E-Letter," Keating writes, "I wrote about "The Point," a little journal printed by Feeney's original group in the 1950s. I listed the titles of the twelve issues published in 1957. All but one was about Jews and the problems they allegedly cause. I said that Feeney's group was "preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession." Not so, said Matatics. The Feeneyites were not obsessed with Jews. They simply were concerned about the salvation of Jews. I rolled my eyes. In the U.S. of the 1950s, Jews were out- numbered by Protestants. They also were outnumbered by people of no religion. Jews then, as now, represented about two percent of the American population. Subtract Catholics from the mix, and Jews represented about three percent of the population. So why were eleven out of twelve issues of "The Point" focused on perceived problems with Jews? Where were the articles about Protestants, members of Eastern religions, and unbelievers? They, too, by Feeneyite standards, are not on the road to salvation. Why so much supposed solicitude for Jews but not for Baptists or Hindus or agnostics? I reminded Matatics's audience that Feeney's men used to go to Boston Common and give public lectures. When talking about Jews, they used slurs such as "kike." A woman in the small audience asked what "kike" meant. I explained that, with respect to Jews, it was the analogue of the "n-word." Someone using the latter word to refer to blacks is suspected of racism--and rightly so. Similarly, someone using "kike" to refer to Jews is suspected of anti-Semitism. Matatics turned up the volume. His friends at the Saint Benedict Center were not anti-Semites, he yelled. I didn't say they were, I replied. I had been writing about the original Feeneyite group of the 1950s. In my E-Letter I noted that today's Saint Benedict Center reprints articles from "The Point." I asked whether today's group repudiates the anti-Semitism of the 1950s. My words were lost in the din caused by Matatics and his fans. He was visibly agitated. His voice went from a yell to a scream and eventually broke. He was on a rant. I couldn't make out what he was saying, and I couldn't get a word in. But I could get out. I was standing by the door, and I went through it, Matatics screaming after me. I was relieved that he didn't chase me as I made for the hotel's exit. As I stood in the night chill, several people gathered around me, shaking their heads at what they had witnessed. One smiled consolingly and said the evening had reduced my time in purgatory. Maybe, maybe not. But I know it reduced, almost to oblivion, the residual regard I had for Gerry Matatics, and it reaffirmed my belief that he would do the Church a favor by finding another line of work." I'LL COMMENT ON THIS SECTION DOWN BELOW WHEN I COMMENT ON THE WHOLE "E-LATTER." Indeed. Matatics, by the way, has also enthusiastically supported the work of the so-called "Remnant" and Fr. Nicholas Gruner's "Catholic" Family News, whose writers predicted that JPII's pontificate will one day be declared empty, void, juridically repudiated; NOTICE HERE THAT HAND, IN TYPICAL FASHION DOESN'T BOTHER TO CITE WHERE THIS WAS ALLEGEDLY DONE, FOR FEAR THAT PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY SEEK TO READ THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT FOR THEMSELVES AND NOTICE WHAT I EXPOSED SOME TIME AGO, THAT HE IS ONLY QUOTING A SMALL PART OF THE DOCUMENT, AND NOT EVER THE ENTIRE SECTION IN WHICH WHAT HE IS REFERR- ING TO APPEARS. ALSO NOTICE THE CHARGE THAT FR. GRUNER IS THE HEAD OF CFN, SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED, BUT NEVER PROVEN. they publicly called for the "suspension" of "obedience" to all the alleged "heretical" teachings of the Popes of Vatican II (John XXIII to John Paul II) who espouse and elucidate the supposed false teachings allegedly found in the documents of Vatican II. WHERE IN THE DOCUMENT DO THE WRITERS REFER TO "HERETICAL" TEACHINGS? Matatics, besides being ironically ecumenical with almost every fringe group which claims to be in ---or the "true" invisible--- Church, groups which defy the law of non- contradiction in that they cannot even be theologically reconciled to one another (!), is also very close to the fringe writers, Chris Ferrara and Thomas Woods, obsessed supporters of the aforementioned zealots. As the saying has it, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.... An army of priests and laypersons has left those sorry ranks. NOTICE THE SLUR, OR MORE PRECISELY THE TACTIC OF "GUILT BY ASSOCIAT- ION" BY LINKING MATATICS' NAME WITH SO-CALLED "FRINGE" WRITERS, WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY "OBSESSED" WITH THE "AFOREMENTIONED ZEALOTS". HAND CERTAINLY KNOWS ALL ABOUT THAT, SINCE HE IS "OBSESSED" WITH ATTACKING HIS FORMER FRIENDS, AND VILLIFYING THEM EVERY CHANCE HE GETS, NOT TO MENTION DILLY-DALLYING WITH CERTAIN "FRINGE" ELEMENTS HIMSELF. HIS POSITION AGAINST CELIBACY, EVEN THOUGH THE POPE HE WILL BROOK NO CRITICISM OF, REAFFIRMED CELIBACY FOR PREISTS. BUT HEY, HE'S THE ALMIGHTY, ALL-KNOWING, "CALLED TO SPREAD SLANDER" STEPHEN HAND. SO WHO IS THE POPE TO DECLARE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT HAND ISN'T IN FAVOR OF? FOR MORE ON HAND AND HIS TACTICS, SEE MY ARTICLE BELOW DATED MAY 12, 2003, AS WELL AS MY WRITINGS AT: salbert.tripod.com/H-Art.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, onto Keating's "e-letter": 1st, it can be found here: http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040127.asp GERRY MATATICS MIMICS HOWARD DEAN The former governor of Vermont has been the object of jokes on late- night talk shows because of his now-famous scream, issued after he came in third in the Iowa caucuses. Last week I was the object of screaming by Gerry Matatics. After thirteen years' absence, he came to San Diego to give a talk. The evening ended with him gesticulating and yelling at me at the top of his lungs. It was a weird and disturbing sight. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT A COPY OF AN AUDIO AND VIDEOTAPE OF THIS WHOLE THING. SECOND, IF GERRY WAS SCREAMING AT KEATING, I DON'T BLAME HIM. I WOULD TOO IF I'D BEEN THE VICTIM OF A DECADE+ LONG CAMPAIGN TO UNJUSTLY DESTROY MY GOOD NAME. During the question period that followed his talk, someone asked whether an unbaptized person could go to heaven. Matatics--who a decade ago declared that he had undergone a "second conversion" and had moved from conservative Catholic to Traditionalist Catholic--gave an answer that closed heaven's gate to almost anyone who is not a formal member of the Catholic Church. NOTICE OF COURSE, THAT KEATING DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE ANSWER WAS. OF COURSE NOT, SINCE IN DOING SO, HE WOULD EXPOSE HIMSELF FOR THE LIBER- AL THAT HE IS, NOR DOES HE DEFINE WHAT A "FORMAL MEMBER OF THE CATH- OLIC CHURCH" IS. The followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was best known for his rigorist interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church," exist on a narrow but real spectrum. Some, such as Matatics's friends at the New Hampshire-based Saint Benedict Center, are at one end and say a person must be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved. They take the most hardline position. AGAIN, KEATING DOESN'T DEFINE "FORMAL" MEMBERSHIP. NOR DOES HE QUOTE FROM ANY OF THE WRITINGS OF THOSE FROM ST. BENEDICT CENTER. Other Feeneyites permit a little more leeway but still end up with a position that is more rigorous than that taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846-848) or by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16) or by the most conservative pope of the nineteenth century, Pius IX. Feeneyites leave either no or little room for "invincible ignorance." AGAIN, HE NOWHERE QUOTES THE SO-CALLED "FEENEYITES". I DO HOWEVER, RECOMMEND CHECKING THEIR WEBSITE: www.catholicism.org AND ALSO LOOKING UP WHAT POPE PIUS IX ACTUALLY SAID IN DENZINGER'S. Matatics, who at his seminars used to distribute literature from the Saint Benedict Center, makes a tiny distinction between that group's position and his own and uses that distinction to claim that he is not really a Feeneyite. (If not, why distribute the most hardline Feeneyite literature?) GOOD QUESTION. BUT THEN AGAIN, IF KEATING ISN'T UNCHARITABLE, WHY DOESN'T HE STOP THIS DECADE + CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY GERRY? Unlike the Saint Benedict Center, he is open to the possibility that a catechumen who desires baptism but who dies before being baptized might be saved through what is commonly called "baptism of desire." But such a catechumen's salvation is not sure, says Matatics. It might be that he is not saved after all. Anyone further removed from the Catholic Church would have even less hope--or no hope--of salvation. This would include not just the unbaptized but also Protestants. (Matatics has said in public that he expects his own parents to go to hell, because they remain Protestants.) SINCE IT IS AN INFALLIBLE DOGMA THAT THOSE WHO KNOW THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION, AND DO NOT JOIN HER BEFORE DEATH ARE IN FACT DAMNED, I WONDER WHAT KEATING'S POINT IS? In Church history there cannot have been many cases of catechumens dying on the way to their baptisms. As a practical matter, therefore, Matatics's position reduces to the position of the Saint Benedict Center: Formal members of the Catholic Church are saved, and everyone else is lost. AND WHAT ARE THESE CASES? WHO ARE THESE ALLEGED CATECHUMENS WHO CERT- AINLY DIED WITHOUT BAPTISM AND ARE NOW IN HEAVEN? The members of the Saint Benedict Center indisputably deserve the moniker "Feeneyite." In my opinion, Matatics does too. After all, there are Feeneyites who are more generous than he is in their interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church." He is midway along a narrow spectrum, but he is still on the spectrum. INTERESTING. THE "FEENEYITES" "DESERVE THE MONIKER". TALK ABOUT PREJUDICE. KEATING GIVES NO PROOF OF WHAT THEY TEACH AND THEN SAYS THEY "DESERVE THE MONIKER". IN OTHER WORDS, THEY "DESERVE" TO BE ATTACKED AND CONDEMNED ON THE BASIS OF KEATING'S SAY-SO! Although for years Matatics has adopted a position almost indistinguishable from that of the Saint Benedict Center, the members of which do not object to being called "Feeneyites," he has insisted that the label should not be applied to him. NOTICE OF COURSE KEATING CITES NO EVIDENCE THAT "MATATICS HAS ADOPTED A POSITION ALMOST INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM SAINT BENEDICT CENTER". HE CITES NO STATEMENTS, NO TAPES, NO DATES OF TALKS, NOTHING. THE ONLY "EVIDENCE" KEATING PRESENTS HIS OWN WORD, WHICH AFTER A DECADES + LONG CAMPAIGN TO VILLIFY AND SMEAR MATATICS IS SHOWN TO BE WORTH NOTHING. One can understand his reluctance: Being identified with a fringe movement is not a good way to ensure speaking engagements. But "pigs is pigs," and Matatics should cease objecting to a label that fits. YES, AND HAVING THE NERVE TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND SEE WHAT IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT IS ANOTHER WAY. TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE AND THE FAITH, AND SPEAKING ABILITY, THAT IF NOT SUPP- RESSED BY BULLYING AND NAME-CALLING WOULD HAVE SPELLED THE END OF KEATING'S EMPIRE, YES, THAT WOULD KILL OFF SPEaKING ENGAGEMENTS EVEN FASTER. He has espoused the Feeneyite understanding of salvation but has been unwilling to go by the Feeneyite designation. He embraces the theory but not the name of the theory. He has not been candid with his audiences and so has done them a disservice. KEATING WOULD KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS, SINCE HE HAS ADOPTED THE LIBERAL VIEWPOINT ON SALVATION, ALL THE WHILE NOT ADMITTING IT. THE SCREAM Toward the end of the evening, Matatics referred to my January 13 E- Letter, which may be found at: www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp In that E-Letter I wrote about "The Point," a little journal printed by Feeney's original group in the 1950s. I listed the titles of the twelve issues published in 1957. All but one was about Jews and the problems they allegedly cause. I said that Feeney's group was "preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession." Not so, said Matatics. The Feeneyites were not obsessed with Jews. They simply were concerned about the salvation of Jews. I rolled my eyes. INTERESTING. WHY WOULD KEATING 'ROLL HIS EYES'? IS IT BECAUSE KEAT- ING ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND THAT THE SO-CALLED "FEENEYITES" WERE "ANTI-SEMITIC"? In the U.S. of the 1950s, Jews were outnumbered by Protestants. They also were outnumbered by people of no religion. Jews then, as now, represented about two percent of the American population. Subtract Catholics from the mix, and Jews represented about three percent of the population. So why were eleven out of twelve issues of "The Point" focused on perceived problems with Jews? Where were the articles about Protestants, members of Eastern religions, and unbelievers? They, too, by Feeneyite standards, are not on the road to salvation. Why so much supposed solicitude for Jews but not for Baptists or Hindus or agnostics? NOTICE, OF COURSE, THAT KEATING IS FIXATED ON ONLY THESE ISSUES OF "THE POINT", HE DOESN'T BOTHER TO LIST THE OTHER YEARS AND ISSUES OF IT, JUST THESE. NOW, WHO'S "OBSEESED"??? I reminded Matatics's audience that Feeney's men used to go to Boston Common and give public lectures. When talking about Jews, they used such as "kike." REALLY? AND KEATING WAS THERE? IN THE E-LETTER IN WHICH HE STARTED FIGHT, HE MENTIONED THAT SOME UNNAMED "FRIEND" USED TO GO TO BOSTON COMMON, BUT HE NEVER SAYS HE WENT, HE NEVER STATES THIS PERSON'S NAME NOR DOES HE PRODUCE AUDIO RECORDINGS OF THESE TALKS TO BACK UP HIS ACCUSATION! AND KEATING IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LAWYER! A woman in the small audience asked what "kike" meant. I explained that, with respect to Jews, it was the analogue of the "n-word." Someone using the latter word to refer to blacks is suspected of racism--and rightly so. Similarly, someone using "kike" to refer to Jews is suspected of anti-Semitism. Matatics turned up the volume. His friends at the Saint Benedict Center were not anti-Semites, he yelled. I didn't say they were, I replied. I had been writing about the original Feeneyite group of the 1950s. In my E-Letter I noted that today's Saint Benedict Center reprints articles from "The Point." I asked whether today's group repudiates the anti-Semitism of the 1950s. My words were lost in the din caused by Matatics and his fans. He was visibly agitated. His voice went from a yell to a scream and eventually broke. He was on a rant. I couldn't make out what he was saying, and I couldn't get a word in. But I could get out. I was standing by the door, and I went through it, Matatics screaming after me. I was relieved that he didn't chase me as I made for the hotel's exit. WHY? IS KEATING SUCH A COWARD THAT HE COULDN'T STAND UP TO A LITTLE ALLEGED "YELLING"? As I stood in the night chill, several people gathered around me, shaking their heads at what they had witnessed. One smiled consolingly and said the evening had reduced my time in purgatory. Maybe, maybe not. But I know it reduced, almost to oblivion, the residual regard I had for Gerry Matatics, and it reaffirmed my belief that he would do the Church a favor by finding another line of work. "RESIDUAL REGARD" HE HAD FOR MATATICS???!!!??? THIS GUY SPENDS OVER A DECADE TRASHING MATATICS, AND SPEAKS OF "RESIDUAL REGARD"!!!!????!!!! KEATING IS RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING, THE CHURCH WOULD BE DONE A FAVOR BY SOMEBODY FINDING ANOTHER LINE OF WORK ALL RIGHT, AND IT'S KARL KEATING. HOW ANYONE CAN TAKE A MAN WHO SPENDS OVER A DECADE BREAKING THE 8TH COMMANDMENT LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY THE LEAST BIT SERIOUSLY IS BEYOND ME. I HAVE A SUGGESTION, THAT OF COURSE WILL NEVER BE FOLLOWED, WHY DOESN'T KARL INVITE GERRY MATATICS TO SPEAK ON HIS RADIO SHOW, AND SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT PUBLICLY. THEN, WHY DON'T THE POWERS THAT BE AT EWTN INVITE GERRY TO EWTN LIVE? AFTER ALL, DON'T THESE PEOPLE WHO KEEP CARPING ABOUT LIVING THE CATHOLIC FAITH ACTUALLY WANT TO SHOW A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE BY LIVING IT, PUBLICLY? YEAH, AND THE POPE IS GONNA USE HIS AUTHORITY TO CLEAN UP THE MESS IN THE CHURCH NEXT WEEK TOO. JUNE 24, 2003 I've been reading about the Bishop O'Brien case. Like I saw in 1 article I read, and actually I thought of this at the time the story came out, now the Vatican wants this bishop out. Not for his transfer- ring sexually abusive priests around so they could continue their act- ivities in peace, but because he was in involved in a hit-and-run. The Vatican, which is slower than molasses in January when it comes to dealing with real serious matters certainly jumped to light speed over a bishop speeding away from an accident! What I want to know is why these same Vatican officials who claim that the sex scandal was nothing more than a "media invention", didn't claim that the O'Brien affair wasn't just another "media invention"? After all, if the press can "invent" a sex scandal, why can't they "invent" a hit-and-run accident starring a drunk bishop? I guess O'Brien doesn't have too many friends in the Vatican, or more likely, he fell out of favor. But the real funny thing is the continued lack of action on the part of the so-called "conservative Catholics" who spend endless hours trashing Traditionalists, but who have virtually nothing to say about the Vatican's (the Pope's) lack of action in dealing with the sex scandal. I would bet money if one or more of these perverted priests had tried to rape the sons of say, Scott Hahn, Stephen Hand, or of any other 'prominent' "conservative catholic" this whole scandal would have been settled by now. The "conservatives" would have stormed the Vatican and demanded the Pope excommunicate and remove these bishops priests, and wouldn't have stopped their outcry of outrage until the Pope did his duty, but since it was the children of a bunch of "nobod- ies", these "conservatives" have no problem sitting back and saying nothing, except by way of trashing Traditionalists who want the Pope to do his duty, nothing more, and nothing less. Another thing, I just don't get. Why are Catholics in this country still contributing money to these freakin' bishops? That is the one thing that bring this whole thing to a grinding halt. Cut off the money, and these bishops no longer have the means to perpetuate their protection of these perverts. Buit the bishops know all they have to do is utter the magic phrase, "What about the poor?" Gee, after all we can't stop contributing to these bishops because of all the poor people who would be affected. They know how to guilt trip us. Well, I say TOO BAD. Where was these bishops "concern" for the poor when they were transferring these perverted priests from parish to parish? Where was their "concern" then? What about the millions of dollars that were spent to silence victims? And what about the millions that are being spent to pay off lawsuits now? The poor are not, and never have been, a concern of these bishops. The answer is to cut off the money to these bishops totally. There are many charities that are not connected to these bishops that help the poor, contribute to them instead. If you are contributing to these bishops, and you are when you give money to your parish, and when you give money to Bishop's Appeals, you are contributing to the continuation of this problem. May 12, 2003 I've been keeping up on Stephen Hand and his website. It seems that he now advocates that we should consider ditching celibacy for priests of the Latin Rite. On his letters page, at: http://www.tcrnews2.com/lettersTCR.html , he has the following: TCR and "Papalolatry" I have heard that TCR is guilty of "papalolatry" and that it thinks everything the Pope says is infallible. Jeremy TCR Reply: That, of course, is patent nonsense. While respecting all the proper dogmatic distinctions, we differ with the Holy Father in certain areas (see TCR's link on mandatory celibacy, a disciplinary matter, for one example, which is opinion, not to be mistaken for dissent). But, having said that, it has always been the sign of a Catholic to be loyal to Peter and the teachings of the living magisterium, relative to dogmatic teachings, on account of the indefectibility of the Church which is rooted in the promises and teachings of Jesus ( Jn 16:13 ). This is simple Catholicism. Anything else is private judgement which has always been rejected by the Church. Beware when men dismiss the Pope in dogmatic areas. They only end up putting the mitre of authority on their own heads. "Papalolatry" is a non-word, a trick-word coined for the unlearned. No one I know worships any Pope, not even the Pope we are so blessed with today and who, we are convinced, will one day be officially called what so many call him today: JPII the Great. He has spent 25 years exploding the philosophical and epistemological root errors of distinctly secular humanism as well as erroneous conceptions of democracy, globalism, etc., in order to make a safer passage for Christianity, and for the Hope of all peoples, into the third millenium (some of us had to put aside filtered polemical distortions and to begin actually reading the Pope's works, in full context and directly, to realize this). What a feat he has accomplished! God raised him up just at the time when he was so sorely needed, just as he raised up St. Thomas in an axial time of change and tumult. Our advice? Put aside the works of the spinmasters, whether on the left or right, and read the works of JPII directly. Then wait for the sun to rise in your hearts. MY COMMENT: Mr. Hand claims that he does not believe everything the Pope says or does is infallible, yet back in 2000, he was blasting his former frie- nds Walter Matt & co. left and right because they didn't believe that the Pope is infallible in everything he says or does, and because they declared themselves to be in "state of resistance" to those things post-Vatican II which do not have any basis in Catholic Tradition (ecclesiastical or otherwise). And yet at the same time, he was, and is now claiming that there are things he does not agree with the Pope about! So which is it? Can we disagree with the Pope and still be faithful Catholics or not? According the "gospel" of Stephen Hand, he is in accord with the Pope and Church, but Walter Matt and co. are not. Sorry. That is illogical, not to mention just plain stupid. The Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church is that you accept ALL the Church teaches, PERIOD, or you are not even Catholic. It's all or nothing. Always has been, always will be. Now, to comment more specifically on points he makes: "Beware when men dismiss the Pope in dogmatic areas. They only end up putting the mitre of authority on their own heads. "Papalolatry" is a non-word, a trick-word coined for the unlearned." COMMENT: Indeed, I agree with Hand about being wary of those who dis- miss the Pope in dogmatic areas. But what about non-dogmatic areas? Well, Mr. Hand will probably say out one side of his mouth that it's ok to do so, as long as you don't run or subscribe to the following publications/apostolates: The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Tradition in Action, or The Fatima Crusader. And out the other side of his mouth he will say that it's forbidden to EVER cticize the Pope, unless of course it's any of them from Pope Pius XII on back, then by all means trash away. As for "Papalolatry" being a non-word, he's right. I never heard of it. The actual word is "papalotry" which I believe was coined by the late William Marra, Ph.D. A man who was very devoted the Church and the Pope and who was willing to see the situation in the Church for what it is, not for what he would like it to be. "No one I know worships any Pope, not even the Pope we are so blessed with today and who, we are convinced, will one day be officially called what so many call him today: JPII the Great. He has spent 25 years exploding the philosophical and epistemological root errors of distinctly secular humanism as well as erroneous conceptions of democracy, globalism, etc., in order to make a safer passage for Christianity, and for the Hope of all peoples, into the third millenium (some of us had to put aside filtered polemical distortions and to begin actually reading the Pope's works, in full context and directly, to realize this). What a feat he has accomplished! God raised him up just at the time when he was so sorely needed, just as he raised up St. Thomas in an axial time of change and tumult." COMMENT: No one Hand knows worships the Pope? Well, Hand obviously doesn't know himself, because this is a fine example of worship. Notice Hand talks about the Pope's stand against all these philosoph- ical systems, while at the same time letting himself be seen as just another religious leader (Assissi comes to mind); while promoting a false ecumenism by his actions, even if not in his official documents; by his utter lack of action when the recent scandal of bishops who simply transferred priests who had molested children (in some cases) and raped teenage boys (in many others); by his constant promotion of Vatican II and it's changes, and decrying some of the abuses that sprang up after, and in typical fashion, failing to discipline those bishops and priests who are busy promoting these abuses, alowing them to continue unhindered. Yes, "God raised him up at the time when he was so sorely needed" all right, and we are still drowning in a cess- pool of heresy and disobedience while Hand and his kind are talking about how "great" this Pope is. "Put aside the works of the spinmasters, whether on the left or right, and read the works of JPII directly. Then wait for the sun to rise in your hearts." COMMENT:I agree with Hand, put aside the works of the spinmasters, starting Hand himself! By all means read the documents of Pope John Paul II, really. Start with ECCLESIA DEI, skip down to paragraph 5b. Here is the relevant part: "Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church." Indeed, we need no "spinmasters" here. We can already be confused be- yond belief by reading the Pope's own words, all by ourselves! What I want to know is: What exactly are these points of doctrine that are new? And which "some sections of the church" don't yet understand? I'd love to know, because in the Catholic Church I was raised in, there can be NO new doctrines, even new points of doctrine. There can be a clearer understanding of doctrine, but nothing NEW. So yes, by all means, read Pope John Paul II; if you aren't mixed up enough, you certainly will be afterward! (In all honesty, Veritatis Splendor was excellent, and I do recommend it, but after that, spend more time reading the Douay-Rheims Bible and Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum (The Sources of Catholic Dogma), it will be time better spent.) Now, onto Hand's new commitment to possibly changing priestly celi- bacy: I'm not surprised by this at all, afer all, not long ago he pro- claimed he was in favor of "woman deaconnesses". I saved a copy of his main page on October 2, 2002. Check it out here: salbert.tripod.com/TCRwomdeac100202.htm It's the 4th story down the page. So, now Hand is in favor of "studying" the possibility of eliminating non-married priests in the Latin Rite. Never mind that it has worked well for centuries, never mind that it is a dissenter's dream to have this happen, never mind that Hand claims to believe that it is a law the Chuirch can change (and he's right about that), never mind that there is no evidence that it would work in the Latin Rite, never mind that if it weren't for the artificially created priest shortage, and the distinct lack of action by bishops, and Popes Paul VI and John Paul II that we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place........ Let's face it. Hand is showing publicly that he is falling more and more into liberalism. He claimed in a recent e-mail to me that he is neither liberal nor conservative, but let's get real....... Hand's stance can be read on his page: http://www.tcrnews2.com/celibacy.html Notice he claims it's his OPINION. Yeah, and Pope John Paul II is gonna clean up the mess he helped create in the Church next week...... Hand needs to wake up and smell the coffee, give up his hatred for his former friends, and deal with reality....... January 27, 2003 I was thinking yesterday about how EWTN was so quick to remove all the material by Robert Sungenis from it's site, as well as stopping selling his books. Now, I think EWTN should show that it's truly con- cerned for the salvation of souls, and remove any and all material by Scott Hahn, who endorsed Sungenis's book, "Not by Faith Alone." After all, if Sungenis is now "not Catholic", and his books are so full of error (otherwise why stop promoting and selling them?), then how can we be sure that Scott Hahn isn't also 'tainted'? While EWTN is at it, they should tell Karl Keating his services are no longer desi- red either, since he endorsed this book as well. So did Bishop Brusk- ewitz, Thomas Howard, Fr. George Rutler, and Patrick Madrid. And Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, and Thomas Howard also endorased Sungenis's book "Not by Bread Alone." "Not by Scripture Alone" was endorsed by Peter Kreeft, and Patrick Madrid, Fr. Pacwa, Mark P. Shea (one of the most vocal of Sungenis's attackers) and Fr. Stravinskas (yes, of The Cath- olic Answer fame). So, if EWTN is really trying to do the right thing by getting rid of Sungenis's books and video material, then they should also ax all material by these others as well. But that will never happen, because as we all know, only Sungenis, and anyone who wants to see things in the Church as they really are, rather than as these so called "conservative Catholics" want to see them, could poss- ibly be wrong. What I say here also applies to Mark Shea, and all the other people who are trying to destroy Sungenis. One thing I like about this campaign against Sungenis is that those of us who live in the real world, and are willing to see the crisis in the Church as it really is, can very easily identify who are the real Catholics, and who are the ones who like to bask in the name of Catholic for the sake of looking good. It's too bad that these people have so little meaning in their lives, that they have to spend most of their time trying to destroy one man, instead of producing real documented evidence that what he says on a certain subject is wrong. If Sungenis is wrong, prove him wrong, in simple clear terms. Why all these blogspots with endless diatribes, endless calls for boycotting his apostolate, and anyone who in any way supports him? What I think is really telling about these so-called "conservative Catholics" is that even though Sungenis has attempted, and is attempt- ing, to clear up any confusion he may have inadvertantly caused, these "Catholics" want more than that. A simple apology, and a simple clari- fication of his position is not enough, oh no. Sungenis must bow and scrape, and proclaim his belief in the gospel of "conservative Cathol- icism, and suck up to his attackers, and basically become their lap dog. The real problem, as I've stated before, is that Sungenis is looking at the problems in the Church, and their causes in light of reality, rather than through the rose-colored glasses of the so-called "conservatives". The fact that Sungenis was willing to step outside the "conservative's" fantasy world was too much for them. And that he said something negative about the Jews is what really gave them all the ammo they needed. Never mind that he may have made a mistake in some of what he said, never mind that he is willing to do more res- earch and correct what might have been mistakes on his part. Oh no, that isn't, and never will be good enough. Sungenis is an "extremist", an "integrist", and a "Jew hater". Amazing how anything negative said about a Jew somehow automatically makes a person an "anti-semite", and thus beyond redemption, but if a Jew were to put out an article aimed at Catholics, or Protestants accusing them of certain things, he or she would be considered a hero for standing for their "beliefs", and do you think these so-called "conservatives" would condemn him? NNNOOOOOO! Of course not. They would hide behind "Freedom of Religion" or some such. It's too bad, especially when the Church is going thr- ough the worst crisis in history, that these people are more concerned about Sungenis (one man), than they are about the DOZENS of bishops who have been working to destroy the Catholic Faith in this country for decades!!! I don't see these "conservatives" calling for boycotts of these bishops who've been protecting these homosexual priests, or calling for everyone to stop giving money to these wolves in sheeps clothing. Oh no, they would be labeled "disobedient" by their fellow "Catholics", and that would just crush these poor limp-wristed ball-less jerks. I think I've said what I have to say about this subject. I know that Sungenis will continue having to contend with these attacks for years to come, because some people have nothing better to do with their time. It's too bad that these people weren't more interested in the truth rather than opportunities to trash somebody.......... January 17, 2003 The campaign against Robert Sungenis rolls on. One of his worst crit- ics has a short list of web sites on his blogspot that he posted because several websites still link, or have recently linked, to CAI. This so-called "conservative Catholic" is still asking people to contact webmasters and ask them to remove their links to CAI. It never ceases to amaze me how vindictive some people can be. If you read this guys blog, you will note that he seems to like the idea of Sungenis NOT having an opportunity to defend himself. I find it weird that this guy, and his cronies, who very few people probably ever heard of before, are now heard of all over the place, but very few people seem to stand up to them. It really makes me wonder, if this is how they treat people they claim are (or were) their friends, I wonder how they would treat their enemies? January 3, 2003 I was surfing the 'Net and came across a good article dealing with the Robert Sungenis controversy. It is worth reading: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/talmudinfo.htm I would also like to say that this campaign by these so called "conservative" Catholics is sickening. It makes me wonder how many Protestants and other non-Catholics are staying away from the Catholic Church precisely because of this kind of thing. First Gerry Matatics gets blasted up one side and down the other because he had the balls to use his brain, and now Robert Sungenis gets blasted because he was willing to step out and do the same. Oh, make no mistake about it, the whole accusation of "anti-semitism" is nothing more than a cover- up for the real reason: Robert Sungenis had the audacity to take his head out of the sand and see what is really going on in the Church, and then say something about it. Another aspect of this whole thing that blows my mind is that these so-called "conservatives" especially those at EWTN, wasted no time in trying to erase any evidence of Robert Sungenis's existence. He had tons of excellent material on the EWTN website, his books were carried by EWTN, and all that is gone, wiped out because some people have taken it on themselves to decide that Sungenis is now bad, a "schism- atic" or an "integrist". Gee, sounds familiar, doesn't it. MMMmmm..... Oh yeah, I got it. It's that horrid 'PRIVATE JUDGMENT' that these "conservatives" hate so much, but are very quick to engage in themsel- ves. As I said before, I don't know if Mother Angelica is aware of all this or not, but I think that when she recovers, she needs to clean house, and get rid of these people who run her network, and get people who are more interested in TRUTH and SOULS than they are in promoting their own aganda (which coincidentally happens to be a part of the liberal's agenda). In addition, I would like to point out there is a lot of criticism of Sungenis because he doesn't believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Who cares??? It is not a matter of the Catholic Faith whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or not. But many latch onto this to "prove" Sungenis has "flipped". These people need to get out a lot more, specifically to a Church or Chapel to spend more time in front of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. If they did that, instead of wast- ing it on blasting Sungenis, they might actually contribute to the solution to the "problem", rather than being part of it. (But of course, they wouldn't know what to do with their empty, mean- ingless lives if they didn't have somebody to blast). Another thing, not long before Stephen Hand mercifully closed down his website, I noticed a link on his main page called: Intention of Priest & Validity of Mass and here is the URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3251/IntentionValidityMass.html I clicked it, and lo and behold what did i find? Here it is: We refer those interested to Michael Davies' "The Order of Melchisedech" for an explanation of "defective" intention versus "positive contrary" intention, and to see that "Ecclesia sufficit" for the former. I found that to be VERY interesting, especially in light of the fact that not long ago Hand put up an article detailing Michael Davies' supposed "fall from grace" shall we say. And now, Hand is not only recommending one of Davies' books, but even claiming to AGREE with him on some points. That's what I like about "conservative" Catholics, like Hand and his kind. They consistently show themselves to be what they really are, hypocrites. December 18, 2002 It seems that Stephen Hand has finally (at least for now) decided to throw in the towel. According to his website: "TCRNews.com made its last daily update Dec 17, 2002 due to lack of finances in a bad economy and lack of time while also working full time. Stephen Hand, former editor of TCR is a Catholic writer and journalist who can be contacted at PO Box 1006, Littleton, MA, USA, 01460 . He hopes to continue writing on the subjects and themes which made TCR a popular website with so many, ever faithful to the Holy Father and the living magisterium." It seems funny that over 2 years ago he had plenty of time to condemn his former friends as "integrists" and cause even more division in the Church, but now due to "lack of finances" he can't continue. Gee, he's a "conservative" now, he's where the money is, and he can't keep up his website, which is FREE by the way? Why doesn't he ask his good friends Al Matt and Bishop Bruskewitz for some money? MMMmmm......... October 18, 2002 Robert Sungenis has posted more info on his site dealing with one of his attackers, and is updating one of the articles he wrote dealing with the Jews. EWTN has removed all material by Sungenis from their Audio Library, just like they did with Gerry Matatics. The last few years, EWTN has, to some extent become a "magisterium" unto itself. And I don't mean Mother Angelica either, how do we know what she has been told about Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, and even Fr. Nicholas Gruner? I not- ice that she never seems to comment on people too much, these things tend to be done by underlings, especially Colin Donovan. I think when Mother Angelica fully recovers, she needs to clean house, fire some of these people who work for her, and get some people who are more conc- erned about TRUTH than how things look. I think it's time the viewers of EWTN vote with their wallets, say to those who are running it now, invite Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, and Fr. Gruner to Mother Angelica Live and let them have their say publicly, or stop portraying yourselves as a Catholic network. After all, real Catholics would be charitable, and give the benefit of the doubt. Or are theose who actually run EWTN afraid that Catholics will find out that some of the people that are daily trumpeted as "loyal Catholics" are in fact not Catholic at all? MMMmmm.................. September 25, 2002 I have been following the debate of late, or should I say attack, on Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International. According to his accusers, he is an "anti-semite" because he published things from the Talmud which prove that the Jews (and in this context I mean the leaders of the religion, not the ordinary man or woman who happens to follow the religion), would rather people not know about. In typical fashion, anyone who says anything negative about the Jews, in any context whatsoever, is accused of being an "anti-semite". Never mind the fact that none of Sungenis's accusers, to my know- ledge, have actually obtained a copy of the Talmud and read it for themselves. No, of course not. They might be disappointed to find out that Sungenis is right. I think it's long past time these so-called conservatives got a real life and spent more time in prayer and in evangelizing the Jews and Protestants they supposedly love so much, and leaving people who are just trying to tell the truth alone. But that isn't in the nature of the so-called "Catholic conservative" obviously, (at least those who spend their time blasting everybody in sight). It's the usual routine, "You don't think like I do, so you're a schismatic, integrist," or whatever. If you are a supporter of Robert Sungenis, and in general REAL Catholics, go to Sungenis's website, and read about this. Then contact the same people these conservatives are calling to be contacted, and tell them you support Sungenis. Also contact his attackers and ask them if they ever actually read a copy of the Talmud, not from the internet, but an actual print copy. If they say no, then ask them where they get off blasting Sungenis without even actually knowing what they are talking about. The people these conservatives are calling for people to contact are listed on this page: http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/second_defense.html I also recommend that you do what these people are trying to do to Sungenis, stop donating to them and get your friends to do the same. Let these so-called "conservatives" know that you are not impressed with their sleazoid attempts to trash Sungenis, or anyone else. Let's face it, the real problem is that Sungenis is no longer one who blindly follows everything that comes from the Vatican as though it were the Gospel. That's the real reason these "conservatives" are ticked off. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- September 4, 2002 Below is the complete text from the July Newsletter of the US Bishops Committee on the Liturgy concerning the posture for receiving Holy Communion. I will comment afterwards: Clarification on the Proper Posture and Sign of Veneration for Recep- tion of Holy Communion In recent weeks, the Secretariat for the Liturgy has received several inquiries concerning both the prpoper posture for and the form of ven- eration to be made prior to receiving Holy Communion. This issue is directly addressed by the adaptation of number 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved by the USCCB and con- firmed by the Holy See. That adaptation reads as follows: The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be add- ressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with the proper catech- esis on the reasons for this norm. When receiving Holy Communion standing, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood. Posture It should be noted that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal assigns to Conferences of Bishops the decision as to whether the faithful should stand or kneel at the time of reception of Holy Comm- union. (no. 43�2) The bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be stand- ing. Kneeling is not a licit posture for receiving Holy Communion in the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular dioc- ese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary cicumstance. The provision which follows this section is provided for these extra- ordinary circumstances when a communiccant acts in contradiction to the decision of the bishops. Under no circumstances may a person be denied Holy Communion merely because he or she has refused to stand to receive Holy Communion. Rather, in such instances, the priest is obli- ged to provide additional catechesis so that the communicant might better understand the reason for the Bishop's decision to choose stan- ding as the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America. Sign of Veneration In a similar way, the General Instruction no. 160�2) assigns to Con- ferences of Bishops the responsibility to determine "an appropriate gesture of reverence" to be made before receiving the Blessed Sacra- ment. Thus, in the dioceses of the United States of America, the comm- unicant is directed by this particular law to "bow his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receive the Body of the Lord from the minister." Uniformity in Posture The General Instruction of the Roman Missal emphasizes that in matters of gesture and posture "greater attention needs to be paid to what is laid down by liturgical law and by the traditional practice of the Ro- man Rite, for the sake of the common spiritual good of the people of God rather than to personal inclination or arbitrary choice" (GIRM no. 42). Throughout their consideration of GIRM numbers 43 and 160, the Bishops repeatedly recalled the need for uniformity in all pres- cribed postures and gestures. Such uniformity serves as a "sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy" and it "both ex- presses and fosters the spiritual attitude of those assisting" (GIRM no. 42). Likewise, a lack of uniformity can serve as a sign of disun- ity or even a sense of individualism. A particular example of this disunity has been cited by many of the Bishops in regard to a divers- ity of postures during the Eucharistic Prayer, "the center and summit of the entire celebration" (GIRM, no. 78). Thus, the variation from kneeling as the uniform posture during the Eucharistic Prayer is per- mitted only "on occasion" and when the circumstances found by GIRM (no. 43) are clearly present. In describing the indispensable role of the gathered faithful at Mass, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal presents them as "a holy people, a chosen people, a royal priesthood" who "give thanks to God and offer the Victim not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him and learn to offer themselves" (GIRM, no. 95). Two responsibilities grow from this noble identity: "fostering of a deep sense of reverence for God as well as developing charity towards their brothers and sisters who share with them in the celebration" (GIRM, no. 95). Such a sense of reverence for God and charity for the other members of the liturgical assembly is concretely manifested by a unity in word, song, posture and gesture. Thus, this section concludes that the faithful are to shun any appearance of individualism or division, keeping before theireyes that they have the one Father in heaven and therefore are all brothers and sisters to each other" (GIRM, no. 95). My comments: First, I find it interesting that there have supposedly been several inquiries to the Secretariat of the Liturgy for clarification of the posture for receiving Holy Communion. Why them? ROME has said that kneeling is the proper posture. Anyone who is a real Catholic and knows the Faith, knows that kneeling is the way to receive Holy Comm- union. Second, where is the official document from the Holy See which supposedly grants this approval? Third, the claim is that the GIRM assigns to the Conferences of Bish- ops to decide whether kneeling or standing, I seem to recall that Cardinal Ratzinger stated a while back that the Conferences of Bish- ops in fact have no power to decide anything, and it is a fact that individual bishops can, shall we say, deviate from what the Conference decides, as is admitted in this newsletter. Fourth, what exactly is this "catechesis" that the priests are supp- osed to provide for those who choose to kneel rather than stand? Fifth, the GIRM assigns to the Conferences of Bishops the "responsi- bility to determine" the sign of veneration when receiving Holy Comm- union. Granted that there were norms issued from the Vatican permitt- ing the bow and all that, but what is the point of that? Sixth, this "clarification" bring up the point of "unity", and in characteristic fashion, derides those who kneel by talking about "individualism". The easy way to solve that problem is to restore the altar rails and have every one kneel like before. The bottom line is the the U.S. bishops, the vast majority of which have been harboring homosexual priests and allowing them to perpetrate their crimes for years, even decades, are now telling us we should stand to receive Holy Communion. Well, that makes sense when you con- sider that 70% or so of 'Catholics' don't even believe in the Real Presence in the first place! For those of us who do, kneeling is the only way to go, excepting old age or disability. As far as I am concerned, any bishop who follows this garbage is an apostate, plain and simple. When I receive Holy Communion, I kneel because I am very aware of Who I am receiving. If Jesus Christ deigned to appear to a sinner like me, I guarantee I would not be standing around rapping with Him. I would be on my knees, most likely in a state of total shock. I don't kneel because it makes me look good or holy or whatever, I kneel because it is the way to receive Jesus, my Creator and Redeemer. I am not worthy even to receive him, let alone to be standing in His Presence. The ultimate question is: Are you so utterly holy that you can stand before Him? If you are, then you have no need of Holy Communion. The greatest of the saints would never have followed this, even the devil himself wouldn't have the pride to stand in the presence of God. So why would you? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- August 28, 2002 Warning: If you are easily offended, do not read this: I have noticed of late that Rod Dreher's article in WSJ has drawn a lot of fire. Naturally, he has the balls to stand up and tell the truth. I think it is time for the "Catholic conservatives" to get their heads out of the sand, and start joining Mr. Dreher in his call for the Pope to do something. The tired excuses, "He's too old" and all this sort of excuse-making garbage is nothing more than BS. Was he too old in 1978 when he was elected? Word is that these cover-ups have been going on since the early years of Pope Paul VI's reign. So why wasn't something done then? Pope John Paul II had over 20 years to do what he should have done. Now, unless he acts soon, he will have to answer before God for his lack of action. You "conservatives". Your hero worship will gain nothing for him before the judgment seat of God. All you are doing is making it harder for these problems to be cleared up. I wonder what would have happened if the teenage boys who were raped by this minority of priests would have been the children of these "conservatives"? I guarantee we would have seen a march on Rome that would have made the barbarians of old seem like a minor detail. But since it was just children of "nobodies", who cares? If you "conservatives" really care about anyone but yourselves, then it's time to show it. Get out there and join the call for the Pope to do something, otherwise go back to your limp-wristed ball-less lives, and leave those of us who are willing to do more than talk and fawn over the "Great Pope John Paul II" alone. With enemies like you, who needs friends? December 13, 2002 It seems that Cardinal Law has decided to do what he should have done months ago, resigning from his archdiocese. IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! I noticed Stephen Hand has an article on his website saying how good it is that it took so long for the Vatican to do something because of course we don't want anybody's rights to be violated (in essence, though not the exact words). It makes me wonder though if Hand had had a teenage boy who had been raped by Shanley or Geoghan, for instance, if he'd be so calm and collected about this whole thing. I doubt it. Given his penchant for condemning people wholesale with no hard evidence, he would have been one the first up there screaming for Law to resign. I agree that the Vatican has to move fairly slowly in order to best figure out how to handle a situation, especially a volatile one like this scandal, but if these people had been on their toes in the 1st place, chances are this scandal would not have happened. And even if it did, it would have been far less than it has become. But as Mr. Hand has been teaching us this last year or so, the Pope is absolutely infallible in everything he says or does, so what have we to worry about? Nothing, except in the real world where the rest of us live, we have to deal with the fact that millions are living in confusion, not know- ing which way to turn, and the best that Hand can do is condemn former friends, accuse them of engaging in "private judgment", and of not following the "living Magisterium", when he himself does nothing but spout his own "private judgment" all day long. He condemns people as "integrists", whatever that is, while citing no infallible statements or even any kind of Papal teaching that these "integrists" are supp- osed to have "violated." It's about time Law resigned, and now it's time for the Pope, who is so "infallible in everything he says or does" to finish the job. EXCOMMUNICATE THE REST OF THESE BISHOPS WHO WERE COMPLICIT IN COVER- ING UP THESE CRIMES, AND CLEAN HOUSE!!! May 31, 2002 The recent attack by The Wanderer on The Latin Mass magazine I have noticed of late that the Wanderer is living up to it's name more and more these days. It's scary when a newspaper which used to be a major flagship of Catholic journalism has descended into what is more accurately called "The Catholic National Enquirer". Over the years, it was a leader in bringing news to the faithful which was important, and which Catholics needed to know. Now it is little more than a scandal rag, which, when it can't blast bishops for their screw-ups goes out in search of someone else to blast. It all started in 2000 when several prominent "Traditionalist" Catholics, including Walter Matt of The Remnant, penned a 'statement of resistance' called "We Resist You to the Face". Shortly after that, totally out the blue, Stephen Hand, who used to write for The Remnant all of a sudden woke up one day, and started screaming about something called "integrism". I still am not sure what that is exactly but it sure sounds like an ominous thing, at least until you realize that the term is used more in Europe than in the U.S., and when you do a little research and find that there are are absolutely no documents from the Vatican (magisterial or otherwise) that condemn it. Why, you ask? Because the proper word is integralism, which Hand likes to use, more to make it appear that the term 'integrism' has some real relev- ance than anything else. But Hand, in his obsession to condemn his former friends of being "integrists', took to whipping out articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia, particularly the one on "Tradition and Living Magisterium". He also made various assertions which boil down to "The Pope is infallible in everything he says or does, and anything that comes out of the Vatican is also infallible, because obviously it MUST have been approved by the Pope." Of course Hand would never say it that way, but that's what he means. I always found it interesting that he never linked to the article entitled, "Pope, The", which lists the powers of the Pope, as well as the LIMITATIONS of Papal power. As well as the fact that he still had problem swith the New Mass, even though he had converted to "Catholic Conservatism." Anyway, the Wanderer snapped up Hand and published his book, the title of which I don't recall, and sent that out as the ultimate explanation of the problems with "Traditionalist" Catholics, and how the writers of "We Resist You to the Face" had fallen into the omin- ous sounding "integrism." I did a critique of some of Hand's writing, still available on my site at: salbert.tripod.com/H-Art.htm I still have yet to see a Papal document condemning "integrism", and Hand, in his obseession with condemning his former friends has never cited a document condemning "integralism" either. In fact, I bet he doesn't even know if there is one ot not. In fact, there is a Papal Encyclical that discusses "integralism". But I'll leave that for Hand to find, although the title of the encyclical can be found on my site. The Wanderer never allowed The Remnant to respond to it's attacks in it's newspaper, so much for journalistic integrity. So now, the Wand- erer, apparently getting bored, decided to trash The Latin Mass maga- zine and it's editior Fr. James McLucas, who had ten times the know- ledge (and sense) that a dozen A.J. Matt's could ever have, over an article carried in the Winter 2002 issue of Latin Mass Magazine on Humanae Vitae. The article is available at: www.latinmassmagazine.com In reading the Wanderer's attack on it from the Wanderer's website, I spotted the usual tactic used by them, and by Stephen Hand in his attack on "We Resist You to the Face", that of not publishing ALL the text of the article, and trashing it's writer based on only part of it while not decaring so. I think it's pretty sad when someboday like A.J. Matt, who has done so much good for the Church over the years, has to stoop the level of dissenters like McBrien and Kissling and their ilk, and trash a good priest, and the magazine he edits because of an article which was the OPINION of the author alone, and not necessarily endorsed by Fr. McLucas. I have never met A. J. Matt, but I have met Fr. McLucas; he is an excellent priest, an excellent confessor (if I do say so myself), and one of the more level-headed Catholics out there, and he does not need to be blasted by The Wanderer and it's kind, or anyone else. The Wanderer is a has been. It's heyday is over. There are plenty of other truly good Catholic magazines and newspapers out there that are deserving of support more than The Wanderer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My Statement on the Current Crisis of so-called "Pedophile Priests" May 9, 2002 The crisis in the Church has certainly come to a head of late, what with all the accusations of "pedophilia" and all that. I have a few things to say about this situation. 1. This crisis is not about "pedophile" priests, even though the secular press wants people to believe it, and even though some in the Catholic Press, inadvertantly in most cases, promote the same idea. Most in the Catholic press have correctly identified the problem as being one of homosexuality, not pedophilia. 2. The facts are clear that several of the bishops in this country have been covering up the abuse by this small minoirity of priests for years, by paying off victims to keep silent, and trying to bind them legally from ever revealing the details. And these bishops simply transferred the offending priests to other parishes, KNOWING that they perpetrated these crimes, and instead of removing them, and giving due punishment for these offenses, they simply allowed it to continue unchecked. 3. I have noticed, at least in my diocese where there were 2 priests who were accused in the early 90's of such conduct, who were removed for a few years, and then given parish ministry again, that some people have come down on the victims of abuse, asking why they didn't say no, and try to stop these priests in the first place because after all these young men were old enough to do that. I found that interesting. I wonder what the reaction of these people would be if it was their son, or daughter, who was abused? While I admit it seems strange that some didn't refuse and do what they could to avoid the priest, I wonder why these priests were even doing this sort of sick crap in the first place? Granted, priests are tempted more than lay people, and are subject to much stronger temptations, but neverthe- less, they are also better equipped to handle them, because they get more graces, and have greater access to spiritual help. And in any case, once the abuse is revealed and proven, it is the bishop's responsibility to punish the offender, and to do what he can to help the victim. 4. It is abundantly clear that these bishops are guilty of covering up these crimes, and it is clear that no matter how many apologies they issue, they are not in the least bit sorry for what they have done, with the possible exception of one, who had the balls to resign. 5. It is also abundantly clear that the Pope is doing little to nothing about these bishops and this crisis. In the middle of the worst scandal in the history of the Church, we get a document on the Sacrament of Penance, that condemns General Absolution, an abuse that has been going on since before this Pope was elected. NOW, we finally get a condemnation of general absolution, at a time when people are leaving the Church, when people are losing their faith, and when we need real leadership? 6. The facts are clear, the Pope is going to do practically nothing as usual. What we need is a LOT LESS TALK, and A LOT MORE ACTION. May 14, 2002 7. It is also getting out more that many of these bishops are using, and have used, hardcore tactics against alleged victims, like hiring private investigators, and filing counter-lawsuits. While I agree that there will be some people who will claim abuse when there was none only to "cash in" on the current situation, I think that these bishops have done enough damage for several lifetimes. If they had done their duty in the the first place, this crisis would not have happened, or at the very least, it would not have been as bad. 8. In my diocese, the bishop has been out making his annual appeal for money for the many Catholic activities in the diocese. He even went so far as to issue a couple apologies to victims and give the usual standard offer of paying for counseling for anyone who comes forward. Oh, and of course, there is a little legal caveat, that the money collected for the annual appeal will only go to support the various Catholic programs in the diocese. And the really screwy thing is people actually buy that! In fact, as of this past weekend, the Catholics of Maine have contibuted around $27,000 or so to this. The goal is to get $65,000. Granted there are some good programs that need the money, but this is also a diocese who's paper carries the weekly column of 'Father' Richard McBrien. Yes, the arch-heretic from Notre Dame, and other things which are not in accord with the Church. 9. This crisis makes the Arian heresy look like a minor detail, but what is being done about it? The bishops who presided over this fiasco are the ones who are being left in place to "correct" it, and the Pope is doing practically nothing about correcting this. And if that isn't bad enough, the liberals and all their kind are of course using this as a way to promote their own agenda. In addition, the Wanderer is up to the same old tired attacks on Traditional Catholics by using the fact that the Society of St. John, which was supposed to be a Traditional order has had their own problems with homosexual priests. As usual, the Wanderer would rather attack good Catholics, rather than demanding the excommunication of these bishops and priests involved in this sick travesty. Better to leave people who are destroying the Faith in position to do so, than to be seen as "unfaithful to the Pope." 10. I would also like to address the problem of people who are leav- ing the Church over this situation. Let's face it, it is totally understandable that many people are very angry and feel betrayed by the Church, these bishops, and these priests. But leaving the Church is not the answer. Do you really think these bishops care if you leave the Church? No, they don't. All you are doing is playing into their hands. None of these bishops and priests is worth throwing your chance of eternal salvation away. And by leaving the Church, that is all you are doing, nothing less. If you have a problem with this situation, then do something about it. Pray more, stop putting money in the collection basket, and start sending your money to Catholic Apostol- ates that will put your money to better use. And encourage others to do the same, but don't leave the Church, that won't solve the problem, it will only deprive YOU of what YOU need. There have always been bad priests and bishops, and even some Popes, but the Church is still here and will always be here. Remember, Judas betrayed Christ, and the even Peter denied Christ, and the other Apostle's even left Him, but they came back to Him, and went on to preach the Gospel, and die for Christ and they are remembered for the good they did. Throughout history, their have been those who have betrayed Christ, and the Church, and the Church is still here. Admit it yourself, you are not leaving the Church because of the scandal, you are leaving because you just don't believe in the Catholic Faith, or just don't understand it. Leaving is not going to help. What will help is seeking to know what the Church teaches and has always taught, and following the Faith. That'll help, not leaving. If you don't believe in the Catholic Faith, then at least be honest enough to say you're leaving because you just don't believe. Remember, the key is prayer AND action. Pray more, and cut off the money to these bishops, let them know that you will not tolerate their crimes, and that despite their betrayal, you will go on continuing to fight. Remember also, in the Revolutionary War, Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country, but did that stop the Colonist's from fighting against England? NO. They kept on fighting. If they had given up due to that, where would we be today? The bottom line is that the Church will survive this crisis, and come out stronger. WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN THESE BISHOPS ARE REMOVED AND REPLACED BY REALLY HOLY BISHOPS, AND WE WILL SEE THE DAY WHEN THE POPE, though probably not this one, WILL DO HIS DUTY AND EXCOMMUNICATE THESE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS, AND THESE HERETICS THAT HAVE BEEN RUNNING AROUND UNCHECKED FOR DECADES, WILL RECEIVE THEIR JUST DESERTS. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN??? _____________________________________________________________________