Rory McKenzie
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Cupich Wanted Christ King Institute To Spit On Mass
With respect to Sally. No. The SSPX has faculties for hearing Confessions, not because they are outside the archdiocese. Pope Francis gave the Society faculties after the Jubilee Year of Mercy. 2016? Before that, it can be argued that the Society had "supplied jurisdiction" anyway, because of the crisis in the Church. It seems not impossible that the Institute will make a similar judgment, appealing …More
With respect to Sally. No. The SSPX has faculties for hearing Confessions, not because they are outside the archdiocese. Pope Francis gave the Society faculties after the Jubilee Year of Mercy. 2016? Before that, it can be argued that the Society had "supplied jurisdiction" anyway, because of the crisis in the Church. It seems not impossible that the Institute will make a similar judgment, appealing to the same canon law as the SSPX. But...who knows, many of those priests split from the SSPX because of these issues. They can be suppressed, or become "Lefebvrites".
Rory McKenzie
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Consecrated Host Taken Away At Papal Mass - Nobody Cares
So that guy was appointed as an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist? If not, perhaps the relative would be better off to make a spiritual communion than to encourage grandpa to sin so they can have a sacrilegious communion in a wheelchair?
Rory McKenzie
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
SSPX: Dreadful "Negligence" And No Apology
Fr. Brucciani does not mention to parents (since they know this already) that he arrived in England from his assignment in America, no earlier than the end of July. He could have had nothing to do with the 2016 policy. He took the offensive material down while explaining how he thinks it might have come to be in the school's materials. It certainly seems more plausible to me that it was a mistake,…More
Fr. Brucciani does not mention to parents (since they know this already) that he arrived in England from his assignment in America, no earlier than the end of July. He could have had nothing to do with the 2016 policy. He took the offensive material down while explaining how he thinks it might have come to be in the school's materials. It certainly seems more plausible to me that it was a mistake, than that it was on purpose. In any case, it cannot possibly be attributed to Fr. Brucciani. Here is part of his explanation to parents:
"In 2016, the Hampshire County Council Child Protection Policy Template for Schools (available on their website) was used to update our child protection policy here at St. Michael's School. The template contained the Brook Sexual Behaviour Traffic Light Tool, which describes as normal certain sexual activities and attitudes that are sinful. Unfortunately, due to a lake (sic) of oversight or distraction, the Brook Tool was overlooked and published as part of St. Michael's School Child Protection Policy.
Ten days ago, before any polemic arose, I read (and updated) the policy for the first time. I noticed the Brook Tool. I inquired if its inclusion in our CP Policy was a legal requirement. Since it is not a legal requirement, I withdrew it."
It seems to me that it is likely that Fr. Brucciani is completely confident that his predecessor as headmaster of the school is innocent of deliberately allowing these materials in to what is probably a rather obscure policy statement. Why did it not come to light during the 2016 school year at all? Did all of the parents and staff secretly share in a desire to promote that ungodly garbage? It makes more sense to me that it was an accident.
One must be pleased that there are still many good Catholics who would be appalled at anyone, and even more, the sons of Marcel Lefebvre, of promoting satanic filth. Presumably, those who are rightly appalled at the shocking reports, will be pleased to consider plausible explanations for how this happened. It seems like it probably involves some culpability on someone's part, a lack of due diligence.
But it isn't possible for me to believe that "the SSPX" condones this filth, as Maudie asks. Or that Fr. Brucciani is "one of them"(sexual deviants?). it is undoubtedly helpful to me to have come to admire Fr. Brucciani during his time in America as our prior. Hopefully, I have offered a few thoughts that might give those who are concerned about this episode reason to entertain a hope that the SSPX is against sexual perversion.
"In 2016, the Hampshire County Council Child Protection Policy Template for Schools (available on their website) was used to update our child protection policy here at St. Michael's School. The template contained the Brook Sexual Behaviour Traffic Light Tool, which describes as normal certain sexual activities and attitudes that are sinful. Unfortunately, due to a lake (sic) of oversight or distraction, the Brook Tool was overlooked and published as part of St. Michael's School Child Protection Policy.
Ten days ago, before any polemic arose, I read (and updated) the policy for the first time. I noticed the Brook Tool. I inquired if its inclusion in our CP Policy was a legal requirement. Since it is not a legal requirement, I withdrew it."
It seems to me that it is likely that Fr. Brucciani is completely confident that his predecessor as headmaster of the school is innocent of deliberately allowing these materials in to what is probably a rather obscure policy statement. Why did it not come to light during the 2016 school year at all? Did all of the parents and staff secretly share in a desire to promote that ungodly garbage? It makes more sense to me that it was an accident.
One must be pleased that there are still many good Catholics who would be appalled at anyone, and even more, the sons of Marcel Lefebvre, of promoting satanic filth. Presumably, those who are rightly appalled at the shocking reports, will be pleased to consider plausible explanations for how this happened. It seems like it probably involves some culpability on someone's part, a lack of due diligence.
But it isn't possible for me to believe that "the SSPX" condones this filth, as Maudie asks. Or that Fr. Brucciani is "one of them"(sexual deviants?). it is undoubtedly helpful to me to have come to admire Fr. Brucciani during his time in America as our prior. Hopefully, I have offered a few thoughts that might give those who are concerned about this episode reason to entertain a hope that the SSPX is against sexual perversion.