Editor's Note: We're interrupting our series of survival tips to reply to a recent email we received. We'll resume the series next week.
Readers,
A few weeks ago you talked about the "rumor" about the recent ordination of a married man. I can tell you it is not a rumor. It is a solid fact... What does your fancy New Lay Movement say about this? Would you attend his mass? Would you go to him for confession? Is this what you wanted?
There's a big difference between approval and prediction. It was a no-brainer to see this event coming, and we predict it will be repeated in the near future. The sede cult masters have made a mess of things. In Sedelandia anyone can be a bishop for the asking, and there are no real standards for becoming a priest (even high-school drop outs make it). Since the sedes operate outside the institutional Church, all the old disciplinary laws have necessarily gone out the window. Moreover, standard sede theory encourages all manner of twisted justifications for anomalous practices. Married priests, then, are a logical result of sede polity. It's a wonder why this hasn't happened more often.
Now, as far as we're concerned, if a chapel can stomach a married priest, then that's their business. Most Traddies have had bad experiences with their unmarried clergy, so we can imagine that some Catholics may be ready to take their chances with a married man. For our part, however, we wouldn't have anything to do with him, and we would never, ever support him with our money.
Our aversion isn't based on moral or theological grounds. Our objection is cultural. Trad World is already so bizarre that, except for a few externals, it scarcely resembles the pre-conciliar Church. Adding married clergy to all the lunatic novelties invented by the cultists would effectively erase the Latin Catholicism of memory. The Traddie movement would end up looking something like the Old Catholic Church. At that point, the Restoration is moot. Traddies will have to convert if they wish to belong to genuine Roman Catholicism.
So, succinctly put, our answer is no, this is not what we want. Married priests ordained late in life without the benefit of rigorous, formal training are no better than the malformed completers who now afflict the laity. Holiness, good intentions, and love of the faith are but a small part of the Catholic priesthood, and, as Traddies know from experience, these qualities are often missing in their clergy. Formation is almost everything. (The Readers would be especially opposed to married clergy owing to their ignorance of Latin: if the current sede boobies have such a bad grasp of the Church's language, just think how ignorant these married priests are! Why, they'd make the severely Latin-challenged Blunderer look like Cardinal Bacci!)
Decent Catholics will stay clear of married priests, just as they will avoid the cult masters. Like the Novus Ordo, both are just plain wrong and should never enjoy anyone's financial support.
Starve the Beast, married or celibate.
Since you are reporting this "married ordination" as a fact can you share with us the folks involved? Is Bishop Slupski the Bishop involved, thereby making Bishop Ramolla's charge true and lending credibility to his recent change of attitude against Slupski?
ReplyDeleteI, too, want very much to know who this married priest is, who ordained him and what church he's associated with. Please.
ReplyDeleteWe are working on positively establishing the identity of this man and his ordaining bishop from several other sources. (We have several oral confirmations, but not one of these other sources has yet to produce incontrovertible evidence.) The individual who emailed us refused to name the individual specifically, other than saying he's very well known in Traddie circles. The writer promises that when the time is right, he'll publish complete documentation, but first he wants to give the man a chance to announce his orders and explain why he decided to "cross the line." The delay won't be indefinite, we're told. If the married priest isn't forthcoming soon, our correspondent says he'll go ahead since the laity need to know the truth. We're certain he won't use Pistrina as his forum if he is forced to publish. He said he will use one of large message-board sites. (As you may have noted from the email's tone, the informant is more of an adversary than an ally.)
DeleteThat is an honest and interesting reply. This topic is very important to me, and I am well aquainted with the possible clerics involved. Because I am having an ongoing discussion/debate with some of the folks we are talking about I have a keen interest in the verification of this sordid affair. I wonder, in humility and charity, if you should be reporting this in what appears to be factual terms, since you yourself admit it isn't verified yet; you seemed convinced of the truthfulness of the charge, from an admitted adversary, which seems to me somewhat unusual. I suppose I remain skeptical by nature, but I would want this story verified before I printed. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteWe absolutely agree with you. Despite what our opponents have alleged, we insist on cross-checked, eyewitness reports to everything we post. As of this writing, we have had several highly reliable reports that identify the parties involved, one as late as yesterday evening. The reports now come from several sources whom we judge to be very truthful. We have, in fact, triangulated them, and we are morally certain of the accuracy. However, Pistrina will not report the names until we have evidence beyond all dispute. Even the reported verbal admission of the ordaining bishop is not sufficient for us. What would be best would be for the man in question to admit in public that he is a priest. If he is now too ashamed, then we must look elsewhere for undoubted confirmation.
DeleteWe're not trying to be coy: As private individuals, not one member of the Pistrina staff doubts that the married man named in these reports is indeed now a priest. Truth to tell, one of us guessed long ago that the gentleman would seek orders. Like the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, we're cautious, or rather too diffident, about amplifying anything beyond what reliable, unquestionably certain evidence has shown (praeter ea quae fidei testimonia neque incerta monstrarunt). Nevertheless, we are convinced that the high probability of the ordination merits mention. Catholics have a right to know the rotten fruits that the cult masters have harvested as a result of their dreadful stewardship. The calamitous decisions of 2008-2009 are the wellspring of a series of sordid affairs, this only being the latest.
Our sources are very reliable, and as we have written, not all are in our corner. Unlike many of our adversaries, we don't believe that everyone who opposes us is a liar or ill-willed. That's especially true in this case, when we have been able to corroborate their reports with those from earnest Catholics who support his blog. Besides, the identities are unimportant. What's of moment is to warn Latin-rite Catholics that accepting and financially backing married clergy is a step that will lead them too far away from traditional Roman Catholicism, no matter how much they yearn for the sacraments and a worthy priest. Those who will support a married priest will belong to the "Donner Party" of Traditonalism, a group forever to be shunned for an unspeakable act of desperation.
Aren't marriage licenses public records? I don't think it would cost that much to obtain a copy.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed, marriage licenses are a matter of public record, but sede certificates of priestly ordination are not. Besides, sometimes such certificates aren't issued even for episcopal consecrations. That's one reason why we'd like the individual himself to 'fess up to his ordination. Absent that, we're hoping for a few pictures.
DeleteWouldn't it be possible to ask the Bishop of question in this affair? Or are you unaware of his name? If it is indeed Slupski as I asked (suggested) I could certainly ask one of his priests if they are aware. This issue is particullarly telling if it involves Slupski, again, it would explain why Ramolla has done an about face on his stance, and at least minimally exhonerate him from many of the accusations that weere levied against him, such as "he went off on his own Consecrating Bishop (Slupski) because of his physical and emotional loss of Florant (now Father)", a charge which seemed odd to me at the time but now might have merit. The oddity for me in regard to his charge is due to a lengthy conversation I had with Bishop Ramolla when he was but a lowly Father, and he agreed with me that it was ironic that Bishop Ramolla would not associate with Ramolla, which he indeed had requested, because of his association with Slupski. His explanation of course was that Slupski ordained a married man of ill repute, a charge which I find odd when you consider the gross scandal of Thuc and the married ordination that Carmona did, both of whom which are of the Pivarunas lineage. God, please, help these trad clerics to just remain silent!
ReplyDeleteYou are so very right about these Trad priests' needing to keep their mouths shut. They all just dig a deeper hole. But that's our point here: these guys don't know what they're doing.
DeleteOur opinion still remains that the married priest should be the one who announces his ordination. If he was so bold as to seek and acquire orders, then he himself should announce the fact to the world. Why should he be ashamed or fearful? No one's rounding up priests anymore for torture and trial.
Whatever. There are no secrets in Traddielandia, and sooner rather than later the facts will come out. The man should do himself a favor and get his story out first before the others beat him to the punch. In the meantime, we all should be preparing to be home alone. We'll be with a much better class of people.
Amen to that! I think it is the greatest piece of advice that has been given to these irregular clergy - "just shut up" as in act like simplex priests whose only ability to offer the sacraments actually comes from the laymens lawful right to request them. I do indeed take advantage of the sacraments from the sede clergy and have for many many years. I fear for my family; my children and granchildren if we are forced home alone, a scenario I admit becomes more of a possibility ever day. These days when I am at mass, I confess I feel I am in an old Kodak commercial "is it real or is it fake" The one think I continue to hangat on is that I do believe they are all Catholic.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, broadly speaking, they are Catholic, at least as far as the principal tenets of the faith are concerned. However, their comportment certainly isn't. To be sure, the absence of authority is one of the root causes: sede priests and bishops are not subject to correction from superiors, so they're out of control. Adult supervision and accountability are essential to the health of any organization, be it the sandbox, the family, a school, a business, or a religious enterprise. The other cause is their dreadful formation.
DeleteI say it's time to get this ordination (if there was one) out in the open. You could easily write the piece as a question. "Was ____ ordained?" I think it wrong to hide pertinent information like this from Catholics who deserve to know what's going on in Traddieland.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with you; I am unsure the proper way to acheive this, keeping respect, charity and scandal out of the picutre, but we do indeed have a right to know. I have spoken to several potential clerics who "may" be involoved or know the real truth, but the responses I get from them are worse then an old Perry Mason episode. There is a faux humility of avoiding gossip that makes me sick. But back to your point; I believe we have a right to know! The truth most certainly may effect me immediately or just be a warning against the future.
ReplyDelete"faux humility of avoiding gossip". You hit the nail on the head!!
ReplyDeleteTrads have this idea that ANY criticism, no matter how true & justified, of a priest is 'gossip' & therefore a sin. When the priest is a member of a cult or independent, then the danger is high as we have no recourse, since we have no higher authority to which to appeal. Thus some trad priests go their merry way when they really need a father to correct them. Men that pose as priests need to be exposed and quickly - period. This isn't gossip. This is common sense and the protection of the innocent.
There are many many many false rumors flying about concerning Bishop Slupski.Dont believe everything you hear or read.This man has worked at a relentless pace since the mid 70's.He made a few bad decisions but haven't we all? Personally,I'd go to Bishop Slupski's chapel over the novus ordo and/or the local indult/FSSP.
ReplyDeleteWe all have opinions and until we have a valid Catholic pope,the Catholic faithful will have to decide for ourselves.