Wednesday, July 09, 2008

More "Breaking News" from NCR on StL Priestettes and Louise Lears

I understand that few of us could survive a steady diet of the National "Catholic" Reporter, but this one (received via email) is quite interesting.

It's titled, "St. Louis Archdiocese videoed women’s ordination rite."

The archdiocese of St. Louis authorized the video recording of a Catholic women’s ordination ceremony that took place in a synagogue last November. It then used the video, along with photographs apparently taken from the video, as evidence to punish a Catholic nun who attended the liturgy, according to several people familiar with the case.

First, this was most assuredly not a "Catholic women’s ordination ceremony," it was a rebellious act of defiance against the Church - caused, no doubt, by arrogance and pride. Any faithful Catholic who might have been inclined to attend this sham ceremony certainly would have taken pictures or video, precisely for the purpose of providing the Archbishop substantiation of the facts of the activities. Should the archdiocese not be advised of such a schismatic action within its jurisdiction? In fact, there is no evidence in this article that any "authorization" was even granted by the archdiocese, nor does it appear that anyone actually needed an authorization to observe the self-indulgent episode.

As I recall, this event was an "invitation only" affair where one needed to "sign up" via email to be placed on a list in order to attend. Several people discussed undertaking that process solely to gather facts. I recall this conversation taking place at one of our local Catholic group meetings when someone passed around a mailed invitation/flyer to the 'event.' It was even advertised on the dissident "Catholic Action Network" web site.

...several people familiar with the documents, prepared by the archdiocese that made up the case against her, strongly criticized what they called the “surveillance” video-taping.

What a fallacious statement - and so much whining! How could anyone complain about “surveillance” when the local media was invited to cover the gathering of dissidents with their cameras and crews? Of course, the guilty parties appear reluctant to accept responsibility for their actions - it's easier to shift the blame to others.

One of the confidential archdiocesan documents, according to knowledgeable sources, was an affidavit giving permission to an individual to attend the ceremony in order to record it. The record of the ceremony is contained on two electronic discs in Lears’ file.

Some might wonder who these "knowledgeable sources" are? And how exactly does an affidavit grant permission?

“It was a surveillance video. That’s exactly what it was,” said Sean Collins, a co-pastoral associate of Lears at St. Cronan Parish until he resigned July 2nd, in part, he said, to speak about what he says has been a grave injustice taken against Lears.

So, if one takes pictures and video and subsequently gives them to Church officials, it's "surveillance," but if one takes video and pictures to be plastered on the evening news or on media web sites, it's not? Is that the proper way to understand ex "co-pastor" Sean Collins?

“What disturbs me even more is that the video taping was premeditated,” he said, referring to the affidavit authorizing it by the archdiocese. Collins did not see the document firsthand, but referred to others who had seen it.

Typical response. He hasn't seen the document "firsthand" yet he has no qualms about commenting on it based on what others may have seen or understood. My guess is that he hasn't seen it "secondhand" either.

And, of course, would not any taking of video or pictures, by design, have to be "premeditated"? Does one not plan to take pictures of video if one takes a camera to some event? Does anyone have an idea of how many others in the "assembly," excluding the media, had cameras and video recorders? I would think that there may have been dozens - it was ,m after all, a "special extravaganza"...and their taking of pictures or videos was also "premeditated," it seem to me.

....There is no evidence that Burke knew about or ordered the taping.
It's nice of NCR to acknowledge that.

However, Catholics familiar with the workings of the archdiocese say it would be unlikely it could have happened without his authorization....

When the possibility of attending that circus was discussed at the luncheon meeting mentioned earlier, there was no talk of "clearing it" with the archdiocese first. Such a suggestion is a stretch, at best.

Archbishop Burke wrote (in part) in the St Louis Review prior to the sham 'ordination' that

Given the most sacred nature of the sacraments which will be simulated, the women involved and any Catholic who knowingly and deliberately assists them risks the eternal salvation of their souls. They commit mortal sin....[my emphasis]
Note what NCR writes:

“Any Catholic who knowingly and deliberately assists… risks the eternal salvation of their souls.”
Conveniently excised from the quotes is the pronoun "them" as in "assists...." rather than "assists them"...But why quibble over details, eh?

NCR thinks that this fact of risking one's eternal salvation (NCR refers to it as a "threat")
is the apparent reason an archdiocesan affidavit was required to permit someone to attend and video the liturgy.

Apparently someone is unclear what an affidavit is. It is not a permission slip to attend some is formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the declarant and witnessed by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or other individual.

Evidently, it appears that there is far too much speculation and hearsay in this article.

Even Bozek was there. We posted a picture of him with his rainbow stole this past January. The picture was obtained from the KSDK TV website...Operating another surveillance operation, I'm sure. Who else might be in those videos/pictures?


Patrick Kinsale said...

I'm more concerned about:

Whether someone in the chancery leaked information that is in a personnel file; and

Whether the video also caught priests of the archdiocese at the faux ordination.

Anonymous said...

I agree that alot of what Bozek does is crazy to say the least, but this subtle hint that the "rainbow" stole has anything to do with him being gay or supporting gay rights is a bit precious. I think that narrow minded attitudes always think that denotes someones homosexuality, when in actuality if you saw many Hispanic priests they are wearing the same stole.

Anonymous said...

I think the rainbow stole is indicative of his character or lack thereof. Does he not support the homosexual agenda? Is he Hispanic? Was he not kicked out of a seminary in Poland for homosexual proclivities? Surely a rational person might reasonably conclude that he wears it for a reason and that reason isn't because it's pretty.