Brickbats and/or Bouquets

Dear Mr P.,

Thank you for your comments in my Guestbook. I can see that you have had a good "peek" around the site, having "hit" it 24 times from Dec. 4, 2000 to Feb. 16, 2001.

You write: "While you have good links and some good content you gloss over the present pontificate's near heretical ecumenical antics including the Budah places on the altar. In the words of Cardinal Neuman 'the pope is infallable not always inpeccable!'"

1. Thank you for your approval of the links, and of "some" of the content.

2. I guess you then mean to accuse Pope John Paul II of "near heresy"
a) in respect of ecumenism generally, and
b) in respect of the statue of Buddha at Assisi specifically?
Could I remind you that had I added the Assisi event to the file on my website ("An Opinion On Allegations Regarding The Pope Receiving The 'Mark of Shiva', and His Semi-Naked Mass In Papua New Guinea") - that file would have been that much larger again.

As it was, I laid out principles for dealing with these kinds of criticisms. Those principles apply also to the Assisi event, and were not "glossed over".

3. This is what must be asked of you:

What are your qualifications for coming to the conclusion that Pope John Paul II is
a) guilty of near-heresy in respect of ecumenism?
b) guilty of "near heresy" of anything?
c) what are Pope John Paul II's qualifications?

What entitles you to make a judgement on Pope John Paul II's guilt regarding the placement of the statue of Buddha on the altar at Assissi?

4. Even if you were eminently qualified to make the judgement that Pope John Paul II WAS guilty of near-heresy, what would that prove.
What would the effect of that be?

5. What is the difference between "near-heresy" and "heresy"? And what are the practical effects of the two positions? Are you qualified to judge? Is anyone qualified to judge the pope? What are the effects of a person "judging" the pope.

6. Did "cardinal Neuman" say "'the pope is infallable not always inpeccable!'"? The answer is NO! Cardinal Neuman would NEVER had said "infallable" nor "inpeccable"! Pedantic? Yes! But, I suggest, that is precisely the game that you are trying to play?

Now, nowhere have I suggested that the pope - any pope is/has ever been impeccable!!! Why do you make this suggestion here? I am reminded of Fr. James Opie of Melbourne (R.I.P.) saying on this very matter and in relation to infallibility:

"When Pope Alexander VI (who had 10 illegitimate children. F.J.L.) was in bed with his mistress and he say "that's it" - was he then speaking infallibly?"

An absurd question, no doubt, but no less absurd that some of the "judgements" made by uninformed and biased "traditionalists" to-day!

Now, I do not say this to offend or belittle, for I accuse myself of the self-same faults. Subsequent to leaving the influence of the SSPX, and following nine months of intensive research and study, I forwarded an approx. 136 page "My Reasons for Withdrawing Support From the Society of St Pius X" to Bishop Bernard Fellay and to Archbishop George Pell of Melbourne. I have no intentions to disclose the full results of that research, but they demonstrated the facts that from St Peter to this very day the Church is composed of sinners - including me. ALL the positions within the Church have been filled by sinners. Some - just to give as an example - in the position of absolute power - have included murderers, murdered, a pirate, adulterers, fornicators, thieves; in fact, every kind of sinner. I would hate to think how many of the 10 Commandments I have violated myself - at least in some way. Thank God that Jesus died to save sinners!

So, Glory be to God, Pope John Paul is a sinner (I suspect much less a sinner than I, though!!!); the miracle is, that in spite of these sinners being in the positions of power from the lowest to the highest levels, the Church continues - and will continue until the end of time. As in every era, there are those who will desert what, in their judgement, is a sinking ship.

7. Remember the comment made by Bro. Alexis Bugnolo relative to my "An Opinion..." file? He said:
"Yes, we should give the Pope every benefit of the doubt. We would give our own natural father as much; why not our spiritual father?"

8. On Jan. 15, 2000 Terrye Newkirk wrote the following:

"You know, spreading rumors is bearing false witness--and in this case, the allegation is indeed false. This sort of accusation, usually originating with schismatics, undercuts the credibility of the traditionalist movement.

"What happened: Buddhists were allowed to use a church for prayer. As is there custom, they placed a small statue of Buddha in a prominent place. The most prominent place was the tabernacle. They may have even believed it was for such a purpose. As soon as Catholic hosts (NOT the Holy Father himself) discovered the gaffe, they explained to the Buddhists that this was offensive. The Buddhists gladly moved the statue.

"So a minor mistake has somehow been ginned up into the Pope's desecration of the Eucharist. I doubt the Holy Father even _knew_ about the incident at the time.

"It seems to me the apology should rather come from those who calumniate others without checking the facts."

I remember Pete Vere writing to me saying" "Never again will I separate myself from the Vicar of Christ."

To which I can only add: Amen. Remember he is Christ's Vicar.

I hope that this is if some help?

With kind regards and God bless,

F. John Loughnan
Feb. 16, 2001