Thursday, January 21, 2016

Responding To The Anonymous Priest.

It was brought to my attention that the anonymous priest has responded in the jungle.  It is unfortunate that he did not respond here since my message to him was here.  The comment of the anonymous commenter with the copied and paste comments from the priest is found under the thread of my last post here.  The priest's comments are in red while my response is in black. The blue are quotes from certain documents. 

Diana quotes CCC 1269. While I am no canonist, my earlier comments were based on the following in canon law. Book II, Part 1, deals with the obligations and rights of the Christian faithful:
Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons

Dear Father,

Canon law 212 says that the Catholic faithful has a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors and the Christian faithful their OPINION.  NOTHING in that statement says that the faithful should DISOBEY the Church leader.  There is a big difference between making your opinions known and disobedience.  The Church is not going to say "obey and submit" to your church leaders in the Catechism and then turn around and pass canon law stating to "disobey" your church leaders. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Laws are not contrary to each other. 

Key here is a duty to make known to pastors and the rest of the Christian faithful...and it must be done with reverence. What I know of the LFM, they have acted respectfully, and I implore them to continue this way. God is with you when you act in charity to defend His church.

That is correct.  The key here is a duty to make known with reverence, which is not the same as disobedience.  However, you are incorrect when you stated that LFM have acted "respectfully."  These are the words you will find in the fliers that LFM have illegally distributed out to parishioners:  
Are you willing to stand up?  Or would you just like to find out the juicy details of Adrian's sick and pathetic little life
Even some of the worse priest you ever met would be looked upon favorable if you had to compare them to Adrian, ethically, philosophically, humanly, or just plain commonly as a priest.  Not only the man lacks any moral fiber of any kind, but he obviously suffers from psychological issues that would require prolonged professional supervision, for him to function in any traditional environment.
So, dear this what you define as acting "respectfully" or making your opinions known "with reverence"???????  The pamphlets passed out are no more than protest picket signs written down as pamphlets. 

Canon 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
The key here is that all Catholics have an obligation to defend the Church, which I encourage them to do. By the way, that Jubilee prayer at the end of is illegal since no prayers are to be added to the mass that are not a part of the roman missal.

Dear Father, you stated, "The key here is that all Catholics have an obligation to defend the Church, which I encourage them to do."  Canon Law 229 NEVER said to defend the Church, Father.  It says (the bold is mine):
Can. 229 §1 Lay people have the duty and the right to acquire the knowledge of christian teaching which is appropriate to each one's capacity and condition, so that they may be able to live according to this teaching, to proclaim it and if necessary to defend it, and may be capable of playing their part in the exercise of the apostolate.
Canon Law 229 stated that we (lay people) have a duty to acquire knowledge of CHRISTIAN TEACHING, to live out this Christian teaching, proclaim this Christian teaching and even defend this Christian teaching.   Nowhere in the Canon Law did it even mention "Church".   

Christ already said that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church, so what makes you think you need to defend something that not even the gates of Hell can overcome??????  The reason the gates of Hell cannot overcome the Church is because in the first place the Church was created by divine hands, not by human hands.  So, since when does the "divine" need to be defended by puny little humans???   

This Christian teaching, which we defend is found in the Nicene Creed and in the Beatitudes. The Nicene Creed consist of ALL our Catholic beliefs and teachings.  If a pagan or an atheist were to ask me what are the Catholic beliefs, all I have to say is, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.........."  The Nicene Creed sums up everything I believe in.  The Beatitudes, which sums up the entire law, are also the Christian teachings that all Christians are called to live by. 

As for the Jubilee prayer, which you say is illegal....the only thing I can say is that if you cannot read the canon law correctly, then I can only assume that you also cannot read the Roman Missal correctly. 

Diana is typical of many of our protestant brothers. They look at one scriptural passage and ignore the entire text. Such is the richness of the Catholic Church that it has studied sacred scripture for two millenia, taking every piece of this amazing quilt into account. One panel cannot be interpreted without understand the whole fabric. 

Dear Father, with all due respect....what do you call yourself when you replace the words "Christian teaching" with the word "Church" in canon law 229?  The Jehovah Witnesses (who are not even Christians) replaced many of the words in the Holy Bible similar to the way you replace the word "Christian teaching" with the word "Church" in the canon law. 

So, yes, CCC 1269 talks about obedience to the Church. But if Diana could look at CCC 907 she would see that the CCC also refers to canon law and 212.3. Obedience, yes, but not blind and absolute obedience. Wrong is wrong, and we must not be obedient to wrong, no matter who is directing the wrong. Infallibility does not apply to bishops and priests, and only applies to the Holy Father in very limited circumstances.

Dear Father, CCC 907 ALSO does not mention "disobey".  It says: 

907 "In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons."
Again, the Catechism says to manifest to the sacred pastors their OPINION.  Expressing your opinion does not mean to disobey.  And again....the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the canon laws do not contradict themselves.

If my priest told my son to serve as an alter server on Wednesday Mass, he can express his disagreement and complain that he already made plans with his friends.  But the fact that he cancelled his plans with his friends is obedience despite his expressed opinion.  My son can even express his opinion that he does not like taking out the garbage (and he has), but he obeys his father's command to take out the garbage.  Do you now understand the difference, Father?

In the same way, I heard a Dominican priest from the Philippines complain that his Bishop sent him to Indonesia.  He voiced his complaints about it, but he went to Indonesia even in a grumbling way.  In the end, this priest came out and said that he was glad he was obedient to his bishop.  Why?  As a result of his obedience, some families in Indonesia invited him to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  So, for the first time in his life, he traveled to the Holy Land.  That would not have happened if he disobeyed. 

Father, please reflect and discern on the Gospel readings Matthew 21:28-31. It will help you in your conversion of heart. You are in my prayers, Father. 


  1. So in your opinion Diana, you are saying the ALL priests must remain obedient to brother Anthony even "IF" there is evidence of him lying? Or "IF" brother Anthony committed rape if there was proof?

    I know you will sidetrack this question instead of answering it directly just based on the opinions you've placed on this blog. From what I've read, you will take a hypothetical question and turn it into something that YOUR opinion believes that it's happened or assume that this is just another accusation when it's just an example on what defines obedience by priests. Should any and all priests under a bishop remain silent and allow that bishop to continue because you can quote canon law and opine that the priest is being disobedient? This I'd really like to hear.

    1. Dear Anonymous at 9:24 am,

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church says to follow your conscious in regards to the MORAL laws. This means that if the Archbishop committed rape, it should be reported to the civil authorities. In fact, even the Pope encouraged this, but nowhere did the Pope ever encourage priests to disobey the directions and instructions of the Bishops. So, if the Archbishop tells a priest to serve the people in Indonesia, then move to Indonesia because there is NOTHING MORALLY wrong with going to Indonesia. According to the weblink below, Pope Francis said:

      ""Whoever follows Jesus takes the path of obedience," which means lowering, emptying and humbling oneself like Jesus, he said.

      Living a consecrated life means "lowering oneself in service, that is, taking the same path as Jesus" and becoming a servant in order to serve, the pope said.

      But religious men and women also have to be obedient and docile to their religious community, their superiors, their order's rule and to the church; "it is a docility and obedience that is concrete," not something theoretical, he said.

      The new and living path the Lord opened for the world "is for us consecrated men and women the only path that -- concretely and without alternatives -- we have to take with joy and hope," he said.

      On the one hand, he said, obedience empties and humbles a person, but on the other hand, it lights and safeguards the flame of hope, rendering people creative because they are full of the Holy Spirit.

      "The Lord transforms obedience into wisdom with the action of his Holy Spirit," the pope said."

    2. And what about if the bishop lies and there is evidence. Should priests be obedient and remain silent?

      Also is it right to publicly shame other priests without giving them a chance to respond? Where does the obedience fall into that scenario?

    3. Dear Anonymous at 11:19 am,

      This is why we have the Vatican. If Father Paul feels that he was unfairly treated, he obtained a canon lawyer and took his case to Rome. In the meantime, he is still called to remain obedient to the Archbishop until Rome makes a decision. In the same way, if my employer dismisses me, and I feel that I was unfairly treated, I can settle the dispute in court. We live in a civilized society and follow the rule of law.

      As for Monsignor James, if he feels that he was publicly shamed, then he can follow in the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ who was also publicly shamed and yet remained obedient even unto the cross. He can take comfort in that while he also waits for Rome's decision.

    4. So why try to condemn priests about obedience when really who are we to judge anyone? Doesn't the bible teach us not to judge anyone?

    5. Dear Anonymous at 4:20 pm,

      That is not a condemnation. It is a reminder and a correction of their promise they made at their ordination when they promise to be obedient to their Archbishop.

    6. It doesn't sound like a reminder but more a lecture on obiediance. Are you a priest who teaches obedience Diana? Have you ever been a priest? What makes you Diana qualified to lecture a priest on obedience? Just curious.

    7. Dear Anonymous at 9:24 pm,

      Do you not know that it was Fulton Sheen who said that the role of the laity is to make sure that the bishops act like bishops and the priests acts like priests. So, if one reads a comment from a priest supporting the LFM organization whose goal is to remove the Archbishop, then the priest needs to be corrected and reminded of his promise to be obedient to the Archbishop.

    8. Are you part of the laity?

    9. Dear Anonymous at 5:09 am,

      I am a layperson, but not part of the Laity Forward Movement.