An individual identifying himself as "RC," and who claims to co-author a Blog with Wanderer columnist Pete Vere, left a comment at this Blog in which he said, "..if they [the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire] ever claim to be a canonical religious community, then that's an imposture and it's wrong. I won't go so far as to accuse anyone of doing that because I don't know what canonical status they claim for their MICM group."
Now, while the Saint Benedict Center asserts that, "We, in Richmond, have never made a claim of having canonical status as a religious house of the Diocese of Manchester," (source:
http://www.catholicism.org/micm-status.html) still, as Roger Vaste has noted:
"Eugene R. De Lalla, one of the group's more vocal members in the past, stated the following at the Keene Sentinel Talkback forum on January 5, 2007: 'Funny, how liberals and the anti-Catholics (and let's face it, that's what is going on here!) seem to "tolerate" the bizarre and their own twisted views, but when it comes to SBC -- a Catholic organization in good standing with Rome (surprise!) catering to ALL those of good will, the true intolerance surfaces..'
How can the SBC be "a Catholic organization in good standing with Rome" without having obtained canonical status? In order for an organization to be able to claim that it is both "Catholic" and "in good standing with Rome," that organization must have canonical status. That would seem to represent imposture. But don't expect RC or his associates to acknowledge this fact."
The Diocese of Manchester has said that the Saint Benedict Center has no relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. But a prominent member of this organization [or at least one who has been very vocal in the organization's defense] has made the claim that they are in "good standing with Rome." Interesting no?
The question remains: Why did Philip Lawler attend the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference as a guest speaker? Does he believe as well that they are in "good standing with Rome"?
Related reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-philip-lawler-accept-churchs.html
5 comments:
And "Brother" Andre Marie - the same "religious" portrayed by his mother as an ordained deacon at the Keene Sentinel Talkback - never corrected Mr. De Lalla on this point or attempted to provide clarification. Could it be that he wanted people to believe the SBC has canonical status? If not, why didn't he address this there? The phrase "in good standing" implies canonical status does it not. Good point Roger.
Roger is right. Mr. De Lalla's statement that the SBC is "in good standing with Rome" is the same as saying that the SBC has canonical status in the Church.
But instead of admitting that Philip Lawler shouldn't have embarassed himself by attending the SBC conference, RC prefers to attack those who would ask Philip Lawler the hard questions.
Since he apparently wants us to believe that it was somehow legitimate for Philip Lawler to attend the SBC conference, the burden is on RC to explain just how this can be when the Bishop asked the faithful not to participate in SBC exercises.
RC is angry because he came here to defend Philip Lawler's attendance at the anti-Semitic SBC conference and really put his foot into his mouth when he said that it would constitute "imposture" if the SBC claimed falsely to possess canonical status in the Church. And now that Mr. Vaste has proven that an SBC member did just that and that "Brother" Andre Marie continued to let people at the Keene Sentinel Talkback believe this without correcting Mr. De Lalla's statement or providing clarification, he is really bummed out.
Another deception exposed.
Mr. Melanson was right. Mr. Lawler shouldn't have attended the SBC conference.
Ellen, thank you. RC has accused me (at another Blog) of "over-reaching" in trying to present an argument from Canon Law. But I have presented no Canon Law argument.
In a post entitled Philip Lawler and Canon Law, I merely asked questions after quoting from two canons:
"Fr. Edward Arsenault, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese of Manchester, wrote a letter to Mrs. Terri O'Rorke in which he stated that Bishop John McCormack has asked the faithful 'to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center [in Richmond, NH].' To which he added, 'For my part, I will continue to make it clear that Saint Benedict Center has no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church in any way..'
Now canon 212 of the Code of Canon Law makes it clear that, 'The Christian faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound by Christian obedience to follow what the sacred pastors, as representatives of Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or determine as leaders of the Church.'
And canon 223 of the Code of Canon Law states that, 'In exercising their rights the Christian faithful, both as individuals and when gathered in associations, must take account of the common good of the Church and of the rights of others as well as their own duties toward others.'
As part of a recent Blog post, I wrote: 'It is very troubling that Mr. Philip Lawler will be attending the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference which is to be held in Nashua, New Hampshire next month. This because the Center has no relationship with the Roman Catholic Church and has been listed as an anti-Semitic hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.'
I stand by this statement. And I would still like to know why Mr. Lawler attended the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference as a guest speaker. Especially since The Most Reverend John McCormack had previously asked the faithful 'to refrain from participating in any of the spiritual exercises at the Saint Benedict Center.'
Was Mr. Lawler aware of Bishop McCormack's stance relative to the faithful participating in the spiritual exercises and activities of the Saint Benedict Center? If so, why did he ignore the Bishop on this matter? Would such an attitude constitute compliance with canon 212? Isn't it true that Bishop McCormack, as both a representative of Christ and a leader of the Church, should have been obeyed in this matter?
And what of canon 223? Again, the canon states that: 'In exercising their rights the Christian faithful, both as individuals and when gathered in associations, must take account of the common good of the Church and of the rights of others as well as their own duties toward others.'
If Mr. Lawler was aware of the Bishop's stance regarding participation of the faithful in the spiritual exercises and activities of the Saint Benedict Center and chose to ignore His Excellency, can we honestly say that he was he taking into account 'the common good of the Church' and his own 'duties toward others'?
I then asked Mr. Lawler for clarification. And received no response.
Inconvenient questions usually meet with silence. But I fail to see how Mr. Lawler's appearance as a guest speaker for the 2008 Saint Benedict Center Conference can be seen for anything other than what it is: shameful.
At this point, I don't expect Mr. Lawler to answer any of my questions. But they remain a matter of public record just the same. As does his revisionist take on the Leonard Feeney affair.
Those who would defend Philip Lawler's attendance at the conference no doubt despise you for highlighting inconvenient truths.
It's like Alice Von Hildebrand said, "Our society is allergic to the truth." Prophets are always hated in their own land Paul.
I would like to know how the SBC can be described by one of its members as being "in good standing with Rome." Notice how none of the SBC supporters are overly anxious to address this point. What does that suggest to you?
Post a Comment