More on Clandestine Operations, etc.

I had posted excerpts from a news article and comments earlier about the "clandestine operation" of bringing in outside "priests" at St. Stanislaus. My comments were:

The terminology is not mine but that of Mr. Richard Bach, a professed Catholic and spokesman for some of the St Stanislaus Kostka parishioners. Mr. Bach, in a previous radio interview, termed the act of bringing in an outside priest as a "clandestine operation"...As if God does not see all.

One should also be aware that there is NO way that one can be assured that the "priest" that these professed Catholics bring in under the cover of darkness, is in fact a priest at all.

Does one "believe" those who routinely distort the facts?

One cannot be certain if the man was a priest at one time and whether he still has faculties to celebrate Mass. There is no guarantee that Mr. Bach could provide that would permit one to assume that the sacrament of Holy Communion would even be valid - that is, no priest - no sacrament...Is one to rely on Mr. Bach's promises or words? Talk about a leap of faith!

The defiance of authority exhibited by Mr. Bach and others is, not only scandalous, it is contemptible and truly worthy of disciplinary action. He and others, by their repeated statements and actions, encourage others to follow them into schism.

_________________________

Mr. Bach chose to respond in the comments section as follows:

Please do not intentionally slander a man of the cloth for purposes of your gain. Priests deal with enough abuse in today's world.

I do not distort facts. I am not the one that goes around attacking people and breaking microphones in church and then profess to be Chrisitan.

To question authority is the root of our faith, as is defending our faith, not secularism. The issue that the diocese is interested in is the monies and property of St. Stan's. The souls of the people there do not matter to the diocese. If they did, they would not be refusing funerals.

I also realize that I am probably wasting my time here since the truth is never allowed to be presented by your blog, and that is not the intent ... rather it is to propogate your agenda, the diocese's agenda, and the group that abandoned St. Stan's agenda.

During the late evening of April 20, I sat down and began to read his all too familiar words - words which are jaded and which lack any association with reality.

Tired of his incessant and incoherent ramblings, I initially fired off what I felt was a blistering response to his comments. After reflecting for a bit, I decided to delete my response and go a different route - hoping that he and others might be moved by the grace of God to enlighten their intellects and conform their wills to the will of our Lord and praying that I might be more charitable.

Some of us have been around long enough to be able to discern something about a man's character by his words and actions. I have transcribed a couple of Mr. Bach's radio interviews and I have listened to his venomous attacks on Archbishop Burke so many times that I have lost all patience with this man who claims to be a faithful Catholic - despite the verbal assaults on the Archbishop, and by his example, encouraging others to engage in similar activities and behavior. One should not be surprised that these malevolent attacks have caused untold scandals in the Archdiocese. Further scandals are perpetuated by the shameful act of bringing in outside "priests" in direct defiance of the Archbishop and his directives. This act, now repeated three times, can leave no doubt that those responsible have "refused submission to the Holy Father or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [CCC #2089, Code of Canon Law c.751] This repeated act of defiance results in bringing shame and humiliation on the Archdiocese and on our Archbishop. I find all of this inexecusable and worthy of righteous indignation and condemnation.

Add to the materially schismatic act of rebellion and defiance, the further calumnies committed on the radio airwaves of St. Louis. The most recent attack of which I am aware occurred on April 4 on the Dave Glover show (97.1FM) - and this I found both pathetic and revolting as well. This 'interview' or, more rightly, propaganda piece, concerned an 82 year old parishioner who had died and who wished to have a funeral Mass at St. Stanislaus but due the the Archbishop's directive following the Board's act of defiance, no Mass has been permitted to be celebrated. One wonders why the Board was unable to resort to its "clandenstine operation" to enlist the aid of a renegade priest to fulfill this man's wishes?

Below are my revised responses...
In his comments, Mr. Bach writes:

Please do not intentionally slander a man of the cloth for purposes of your gain. Priests deal with enough abuse in today's world.

Mr. Bach's frequent use of the word "slander" has become tedious - it seems to be one of his favorite words. It was also used in his comments to me on the "FreeRepublic" web site recently. One can only wonder if he could demonstrate exactly WHERE this "slander" occurred above? One would think that a spokesman would have the adequate command of the English language and be knowledgeable enough to understand the meaning of the word and to use it in its proper sense. And what "gain" is there for me? The only gain I can see is that, perhaps, by bringing this out into the open, some may choose the path of Christ in humble obedience rather than the path of Satan in prideful arrogance.

Secondly, the Catholic faithful have no guarantee that this "priest" is, in fact, a man of the cloth, as Mr. Bach claims. Certainly, it seems rather foolish to believe Mr. Bach that the man brought in from outside the diocese is a Roman Catholic priest.

Lastly, Mr. Bach regularly employs flawed arguments and rhetoric - this time, it is a lame attempt to tug at one's heartstrings by stating that "priests deal with enough abuse." This statement is true enough, yet, in this context it is merely another indication of a feigned sincerity and a confirmation of a continued process of obfuscation of the issues.

Fortunately many people can see through this attempt at evoking a sympathetic response.

I do not distort facts. I am not the one that goes around attacking people and breaking microphones in church and then profess to be Chrisitan.

Invariably the story about the broken microphone incident always arises. Apparently, Mr. Bach is obsessed with irrelevant minutiae such as this. This is a standard tactic of those who are desperate and unable to argue a case on its merits - they change the subject from the real issue to other topics - in other words, they use distraction. As mentioned before in previous comments to Mr. Bach, all of which have been ignored, the microphone incident is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the ISSUES and FACTS. Again, we could properly state that this is a practice of distorting the facts. These distortions have been DOCUMENTED here a number of times - yet neither Mr. Bach nor anyone else there chooses to answer pointed and direct questions.

Also, a claim is made that he is "not the one that goes around attacking people." It is beyond belief that one could make such a statement! Let us name things for what they truly are - this claim is patently false, a lie and can be seen in the transcript of the radio interview by McGraw Milhaven which was previously posted on this site. Is it truly the obligation of a spokesman to distort the facts while simultaneously claiming that he is not distorting the facts?

To question authority is the root of our faith, as is defending our faith, not secularism. The issue that the diocese is interested in is the monies and property of St. Stan's. The souls of the people there do not matter to the diocese. If they did, they would not be refusing funerals.

Where, in God's name, does one find that "questioning authority" is "the root of our faith"? It sounds more like a motto or battle cry of Call-to-Action, or the Women Priest advocates, or some other pseudo-Catholic faction composed of whiners and malcontents. Perhaps, this is just something else that mysteriously pops into one's mind?

It must be noted that, because those in authority are not impeccable, the Catholic Church recognizes and protects the right to question lawful authority. The Church also recognizes the need to protect the common good and avoid scandal when questioning lawful authority. Because of the rights and obligations attached to ecclesiastical offices and the need to protect right order, the Church always presumes good faith on the part of lawful authority, and she always presumes their actions are in accord with law. She expects the faithful to make these same presumptions. To protect the common good, the Church has established various procedures to be used when questioning the actions of those in authority.

While we have a right to question authority, we have an obligation to do so only according to the means provided by the Church.These means safeguard the common good against scandal and protect the reputations of everyone involved. If we question lawful authority according to the means provided by the Church, we remain obedient to the Church. If we use unlawful means that cause scandal and destroy reputations, we become guilty of disobedience and detraction, even if the one in authority is wrong. (Note 1)

The ISSUE here is ultimately one of OBEDIENCE to lawful Church authority, despite the repeated feeble claims of it being about money. Mr. Bach, the Board and those who support the rebellion are making the issue about money and, as the facts so clearly indicate, they are wrong for doing so.

I also realize that I am probably wasting my time here since the truth is never allowed to be presented by your blog, and that is not the intent ... rather it is to propogate your agenda, the diocese's agenda, and the group that abandoned St. Stan's agenda.

Frankly, about the only modicum of truth, so far, has been the fact that Mr. Bach and his comrades see the issue as one of money. The historical facts, however, demonstrate that the "problem" is about conformity to Church law and obedience to the Church and her leaders. The spokesman, as his duties no doubt demand, speaks as propagandist of distortions and lies. His speech and actions confirm to rational and prudent people that he is a supporter of dissent and rebellion. The insipid "arguments" made above and elsewhere cannot withstand the test of any sort of scrutiny or examination.

And the claim is made that "truth is never allowed to be presented by your blog"...I must admit that this comes as a real shock to me. Evidently, I have been outed as a purveyor of falsehoods in keeping with my "agenda" and the agenda of the Archdiocese. I have inverted reality. Here on this blog, lies are presented as the truth, evil is good, and darkness is light...I can only ask - Does this man expect me or others to take him seriously?

I have allowed him to enter into a sensible dialogue or conversation here without interference knowing that discerning individuals would come to see what those "St. Stanislaus parishioners in exile" have had to endure for so long. They deserve our prayers and support as victims forced to flee oppression.

The continued defiance directed toward the Archbishop and the Holy See is reprehensible. Their actions and words are disgraceful. The attitude of this group of malcontents is no different, in principle, than that of other groups of dissenting and disobedient people who claim the name "Catholic".

May they come to their senses and repent of their actions before it is too late. We ask this of you, O Lord.


(Note 1.) Should I Obey?: Faithfully Responding to Lawful Authority (Catholics United for the Faith, Faith Fact) Source.