Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

An Ensteemed Canonist on the McQuaid Debacle

April 1st, 2013, Promulgated by DanielKane

This is getting viral. Which is good. First, Fr. James Martin tweets 23,000+ followers a link to the Advocate, a  vulgar magazine that celebrates the gay lifestyle. Then it is picked up by a popular blog, “The Deacon’s Bench“. Then it made the Huffington Post.

Professor Ed Peters is not some bumpkin canon lawyer.  Not only is he a seminary professor at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, he is a consultant to the Apostolic Signatory; one of the few laymen so appointed. He is also the father of six. The kindest thing he about Fr. Salmon’s letter is this:

Catholics who were mercifully spared the “Church of the 70’s” might find illuminating Salmon’s letter; it’s vintage what so many of us were force-fed for ten dark years: condescending, platitudinistic, partial quotes of Church  documents used to justify the exact opposite of what the Church wants her members to know about Christ and his Gospel.

See the rest of Dr. Peter’s analysis of Dr. Peter here.

 

|

23 Responses to “An Ensteemed Canonist on the McQuaid Debacle”

  1. avatar Ron says:

    But I notice the e-mail edition of the Catholic Courier that came out today has no mention. Will they cover it? I hope so.

  2. avatar Ron says:

    Good – thanks for pointing it out. Glad to see it.

  3. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Long before I would sit in the chair as a Corporate Director, I had another director tell me that one could sit in that chair for years, doing business with capability, sincerity and diligence. And then, almost in an instant, would come a moment when the “soul of the organization” poised on the brink. It is for that very moment that a corporate director sits in the chair, or a company president, or a governor, or – yes — even a principal of a school. Because organizations do have “souls” of a type,and they can be nurtured or strangled.

    Fr. Salmon has failed to protect the “soul” of McQuaid. At this point there is one of two decisions to be made. 1) to leave him in place and to pass the point of no return on the slippery slope, tainting Jesuit education far and wide or 2) to yank him out, visibly replace him with a faithful priest who consistently honors Catholic teaching in season and out of season, and to reinforce that parents can indeed trust their children to the soul of that institution, McQuaid.

    We should be tolerant of people’s mistakes, we all make them. But some are so egregious that it becomes irresponsible to give second and third chances, especially where children are concerned. There are many ways to abuse children, and they are not all sexual. Bad example, temptations, confusion and lack of moral clarity are all abusive and damaging. Fr. Salmon has passed that point of no return. He can never again be trusted by parents with their children because of the decision he has made.

    The only question left is will he be promptly removed or is the soul of McQuaid doomed?

  4. avatar annonymouse says:

    Dr. Peters’ blog reminds me of another issue that was argued on this site not too long ago, and I think it could be instructive for the McQuaid situation. That issue pertained to whether married deacons and priests can licitly (under canon law) continue to engage in sexual relations with their wives after ordination. But regardless of that question, there is no question that widower priests and deacons may NOT remarry (absent canonical dispensation). So what would be point of a widower priest or deacon dating? There would be no future to such a dating relationship, without entering into a state of sin, since it is not possible for such a relationship to lead to marriage and sexual consummation.

    Similarly, according to the consistent teaching of the Church, there can be no future to a homosexual dating relationship, as it cannot lead to marriage (except in a secular, civil sense) and sexual consummation. Such a relationship can by nature NEVER lead to the creation of new life. So why would Fr. Salmon POSSIBLY encourage such a relationship, which can only be a near occasion of sin?

  5. avatar annonymouse says:

    Heck, it’s not much different than Fr. Salmon dating. There is no way such a relationship can licitly lead to anything greater, given Fr. Salmon’s vow of celebacy. For Fr. Salmon to start a dating relationship with a woman (or a man), even though we don’t know if it will lead to anything sinful, would be unthinkable – for in light of his vow, the relationship cannot lead anywhere.

    Well the Church calls men and women afflicted with same-sex attaction to lead chaste lives. The Church cannot condone such a dating relationship – it is a betrayal of that call to chastity to encourage such people to “date” and provide them a Catholic-school-sponsored forum for that dating. For such a dating relationship simply cannot lead to anything more that is not gravely sinful. It is an invitation to sin, and Fr. Salmon’s put his and his school’s imprimatur on their relationship.

    Why does he not get that?

  6. avatar Dr. K says:

    Heck, it’s not much different than Fr. Salmon dating. There is no way such a relationship can licitly lead to anything greater, given Fr. Salmon’s vow of celebacy. For Fr. Salmon to start a dating relationship with a woman (or a man), even though we don’t know if it will lead to anything sinful, would be unthinkable – for in light of his vow, the relationship cannot lead anywhere.

    Excellent point.

  7. avatar Mike says:

    FWIW, the composition of McQuaid’s Board of Trustees as of last year is listed here.

  8. avatar Hopefull says:

    We need no further proof of the failure of McQuaid education that to look at their facebook site and see all the supportive comments of parents and students around Fr. Salmon’s actions. RIP.

  9. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    If this is the prevailing attitude, then let’s invite seminarians to the prom and they can bring dates of either the same or opposite sex. But weren’t seminarians allowed to date at some seminaries in the 1970’s?

  10. avatar DanielKane says:

    Hello Hopefull – McQuaid has a near full time monitor on their facebook page, deleting any link to any site that is contrary to the theology of Fr. Salmon and any comment that has the slightest whiff of reason – like it is a near occasion of sin and despair for homosexually attracted children date. At the end of the day, this is not about a dance, it is about heaven & hell. Note the warning of Matthew 18:

    “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!”

  11. avatar Ron says:

    They may have deleted the links to here, but there are a few negative posts there – including this one:

    Can hardly believe how “sanitized” the site is…http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/outrage-ny-catholic-high-school-invites-gay-couple/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    or this one:

    McQuaid has become a disgrace after Fr. Salmon’s flagrant disregard for Church teaching on human sexuality.

  12. avatar Scott W. says:

    They may have deleted the links to here, but there are a few negative posts there – including this one

    One guy made a comment that since McQuaid is an independent school, the bishop can’t really do anything to them. I was under the impression that the bishop does have some options. What would those be?

  13. avatar Hopefull says:

    Well, then, I’d like to invite anyone whose comments were deleted from McQ’s site for being too supportive of Church teaching to log on right here, tell us what McQ deleted, and give them a chance to restate their case against McQ. Let’s see what kind of turnout there is!

  14. avatar annonymouse says:

    Interesting that Sr. Pat Sholes (St. Bernards president) sits on the McQuaid board.

  15. avatar Ron says:

    One of the McQuaid trustees is

    Elisabeth R. Sullivan P ’08, ’11
    Director of Communications
    St. John Bosco School

    St. John Bosco School??? Really? I wonder if she was consulted.

  16. avatar Ron says:

    As I understand it, anyone can start an independent school without diocesan permission and call it Catholic – Archangel, or St. John Bosco, for two examples. The Bishop – once we have one – can’t do anything official about that. He can give schools recognition, but they can exist without it. In the case of McQuaid, he does have the power to deny permission for an order to operate in the diocese. So a bishop can tell the Jesuits they can’t be here. But McQuaid could continue to operate with lay people running it and teaching at it.

  17. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    One of the McQuaid trustees is

    Elisabeth R. Sullivan P ’08, ’11
    Director of Communications
    St. John Bosco School

    I think it’s safe to assume she would stand on the side of truth. I don’t think this decision required unanimous support from trustees.

  18. avatar Scott W. says:

    So a bishop can tell the Jesuits they can’t be here.

    I thought so. Obviously that would take the kind of fortitude that bishops seem to have a dearth of.

  19. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    That’s what’s scary. There are so many youth who are corrupted by the Culture of Death. And so many Catholic students have been exposed and are adherent to this culture, thanks to the efforts of people like Fr. Salmon, as well as a refusal to teach about homosexuality, abortion, birth control and pre-marital sex. This bodes bad for our society.

  20. avatar Ron says:

    By the way, shouldn’t that be “esteemed” cononist?

  21. avatar Ron says:

    “canonist” – geesh, if I’m going to comment on spelling, it would be good to check my own!


-Return to main page-