A response to the Rev. William J.
King letter of February 3, 2004
I received a
personal letter that has a direct bearing upon all the members and supporters of
SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission.
The letter was written on February 3rd from the Diocese of
Harrisburg and signed by the Rev. William J. King, JCD. The letter claims to be in response to the
request from SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission received by Bishop Dattilo on January 14th for him to consecrate
our Mission Chapel. A consecration is
something only a bishop can do, consequently since Bishop Dattilo
refused, the Chapel was formally exorcised, blessed
and dedicated by a Catholic priest. Just
for the record, Bishop Dattilo was not invited to SS.
Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission in an ecumenical gesture to attend a
“dedication service.”
My last
mailing to Rev. King on January 26th, entitled Comments on a
Canon Liar, was written in response to his publication in the diocesan
newspaper on January 9th.
Referring to him as a “canon liar” is a serious charge, so I was careful
to document the evidence for this charge in detail. Rev. King’s established reputation as
untrustworthy is now public knowledge.
Apparently that caused a little stir in the judicial vicars
office because it has produced the first communication from the Diocese since
Bishop Dattilo came to Harrisburg in the late
1980’s. At least we have evidence that
there is some form of life in the chancery, no matter how dim. However, evidence of life is not evidence of
mind.
If I had to
speculate on the most important reason for this letter I would say it was an
effort of the “Canon” King to remove his foot from his mouth. It was published in the York Daily Record,
the York daily newspaper, that the Harrisburg Diocese has never responded to
any communication or been in contact with any Catholic from SS. Peter and Paul
Roman Catholic Mission. That being
known, it was difficult for him to defend his published charge that “many of
their doctrines and practices contradict Biblical revelation and authentic
Catholic teaching,” that “their theology contains certain doctrinal errors,”
and they are a “sect in schism with the Catholic Church.” Canon Lawyer King has leveled the most
serious accusations of guilt that a prelate can make against any Catholic
without any evidence or even giving the appearance of due process. After all, is anyone aware of any heretic in
the entire history of the Catholic Church ever being condemned before a
hearing? On the judicial vicar’s web
page he promises due process to homosexuals accused of predatory behavior
against Catholic boys. Due process is
only necessary in the proper and just application of the law. If the law is to be used as a weapon to
attack Catholics who are guilty of being Catholic, well, that is a different
matter.
On the
Diocesan web page Rev. King has this to say regarding the role of Canon Law:
The role of law in the Church, according to
the Holy Father, is to provide a service "which is ultimately pastoral in
nature" since "it seeks to strengthen the bonds of communion in the
Church through fidelity to the Gospel and the promotion of justice." In the
application of the canonical norms, the Church is called "to bring healing
and hope in fragile situations of human weakness and sin…" always keeping
in mind "the pastoral nature of all Church law, while never derogating
from the demands of truth." Canon law is to become, in the words of Pope
John Paul II, "an effective instrument for the continual renewal of
ecclesial life." Indeed, canon law helps provide order and discipline in
the Church, it protects the rights of individuals, and it seeks to provide
justice based on equity for all its members. The ultimate purpose of law in the
Church is "the salvation of souls."
While I do
not think that this is the best definition of canon law it makes some excellent
and valid points. The Pope says canon
law is to be “pastoral in nature” and “strengthen the bonds of communion in the
Church.” Rev. King uses it as a weapon
to claim that Traditional Catholic have been excluded from the Church. The Pope says that canon law is for the
“promotion of justice.” Rev. King uses
it to deny Traditional Catholics what Pope John Paul II calls “rightful
aspirations.” Rev. King’s canon law is
wholly divorced from its “ultimate purpose,” what the Church has always taught
and the Pope affirms is “the salvation of souls,” the first and greatest law
which all others must be subjected.
Rev. King is
nothing more than a modern day practitioner of Pharisaism. This again is another and more serious
charge, for every Pharisee is a liar but not every liar is a Pharisee. Unlike Rev. King, when I make a charge, the
supporting evidence on which the charge is based is provided so that others may
judge the merits of the charge, and that he who is charged may offer a
defense. The defining characteristic
of Pharisaism is the corruption of law from its
proper end and its necessary relationship to equity. The truth of the charge against Rev. King is
evident to anyone applying a little common sense. Consider for a moment what Rev. King has
done. He has declared that the practice
of the Roman Catholic Faith that has informed the greatest saints, doctors,
fathers, confessors and martyrs for the past two thousand years is now
illegal. Furthermore, anyone who wants
to do as these saints have done is a heretic and schismatic. Rev. King has outlawed Tradition. We could speculate all day about the internal
justification for this absurd notion, but even putting it in the most favorable
light makes him look the fool.
To this end,
his entire missive is stuffed with terms used in a manner that are not
consonant with their proper definitions, unwarranted presuppositions,
improperly structured arguments, allegations without supporting evidence, all
wrapped in the sanctimonious piety of the Pharisee.
Really, is
Rev. King suffering some form of psychosis, unable to apprehend reality? He affirms that the Diocese of Harrisburg is
a “growing and faith-filled church” (whatever that means) and that any
assertion that the Church is in decline is “erroneous and baseless.” Maybe Rev. King considers the closing of
nearly thirty parishes in the fastest growing population area in the state a
sign of health. Perhaps he thinks that
it is a good sign when parishes exist without a resident pastor. Maybe Rev. King is ignorant of the fact that
the Bishop himself has used the argument that he could not attend to the needs
of Traditional Catholics because he had to close many parishes, and that there
was a severe shortage of priests and vocations in this diocese. Maybe Rev. King considers it a sign of health
when pornographic screening software must by suspended to bring up the Diocesan
web page because it features “information on the Youth Protection Program and Sexual
Abuse of Minors.” Rev.
King has been made aware of the book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators
by Mr. Kenneth Jones that documents the statistical decline of the Catholic
Church over the last forty years. He
must think that it applies to everybody but himself. But alas, Rev. King is a liberal. For a liberal, their theories are normative;
it’s those facts that keep going askew.
Rev. King
presupposes without offering any evidence whatsoever that the Traditional Roman
Rite of Mass has been outlawed. He
maintains this assumption even after being informed of the statements of
Cardinal Stickler regarding the ad hoc commission of nine cardinals
called by Pope John Paul II to address this very question whose findings formed
the ground for the encyclical, Ecclesia Dei. The commission of Cardinals
included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko and was
instructed to examine two questions:
1) Did Pope
Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional
Mass?
2) Does the priest
have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private
without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?
The
Commission unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the
authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass. Regarding the second question: The Commission
stated that priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the
bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the
traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.
Rev. King
knows this because I have told him.
Still he affirms in his Pharisaical arrogance that the Immemorial Roman
Rite is against the law. He also affirms
that Bishop Dattilo is in communion with Pope John Paul
II who said in the encyclical, Ecclesia Dei, “To all those Catholic
faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary
forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to
facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to
guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter
I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral
ministry in the church." The Pope makes a proper distinction between
"liturgical and disciplinary" categories. He is not simply addressing a question of the
Mass, but of all the Ecclesiastical Traditions of our Church. The Pope, in accord with the findings of the ad
hoc commission of nine cardinals, acknowledges the "rightful
aspirations" of Traditional Catholics and therefore professes his
"will" to perform his duty to "guarantee respect" for these
rights. Further, the Pope is not granting an indult. An indult
is "a faculty granted by the Holy See to bishops and others to do
something not permitted by the common law of the Church" (Catholic Dictionary, Attwater).
Hence, a "rightful aspiration" cannot be the subject of an indult.
Bishop Dattilo, lacking any sense of episcopal duty, has refused
in a most callous manner this directive by the Pope he claims to be in
communion with. The Bishop prefers to
expel a Traditional Catholic from his church than “facilitate their ecclesial
communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their
rightful aspirations.” The Catholics of
SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission are not only in communion with the
Pope in this question, but in communion with two thousand years of Catholic
tradition. Bishop Dattilo
and his lackey Rev. King are in communion with neither. The Bishop has refused communion with
Catholics who profess the Catholic Faith and Morals whole and entire and who
pray for the Pope and himself in the Traditional Masses sponsored in their
Chapel. Is it not in fact Bishop Dattilo and Rev.
King who are themselves in schism?
Does Rev.
King know what schism is? There is
evidence in his letter to suggest that he does not have a clue regarding the
distinction of disobedience to himself and schism with the Catholic Church. After all, Rev. King, setting aside the First
Commandment, prays with Moslems and Jews to their common god. Jesus Christ is excluded from such prayer
services. Rev. King apparently has some
form of communion with those who deny Christ.
He supports the sending of Catholic children to Lutheran Bible Camps to
be doctrinally informed by instructors who deny all Tradition. To be informed by those, who like himself, have made Tradition
“illegal.” Should it surprise anyone
that he does not want to have communion with those who profess that Jesus
Christ is the Son of the Living God and that Tradition, with Sacred Scripture,
is a source of Divine Revelation?
Rev. King
makes the charge of heresy saying that I am “rejecting doctrine by personal
preference.” This is restating his
previous charge, referring to the members of SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic
Mission, that “many of their doctrines and practices contradict Biblical
revelation and authentic Catholic teaching,” and that “their theology contains
certain doctrinal errors.” Rev. King
makes this charge of heresy without providing a single shred of evidence. Rev. King has not, and cannot, cite a single
dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith that I and the members of SS. Peter and Paul
Roman Catholic Mission do not affirm absolutely. This is nothing but calumny. For this sin to be forgiven, Rev. King must
not only repent, but he must also make an act of reparation proportional to the
damage done. That would be difficult for
anyone, but for a Pharisee, it is nearly impossible.
Rev. King
uses the term “authentic magisterium”
in a sense that corrupts its meaning. He
says that the “action of choosing or rejecting doctrine by personal preference
is…..a dissent from the authentic magisterium.” The act of “choosing or rejecting doctrine”
is rejecting the Magisterium period
in either its ordinary and universal or
in its extra-ordinary mode of expression. Rev. King is offering a definition for a
heretic, and if he is calling someone a heretic he had better produce the
evidence to support the charge.
The
“authentic,” or as it is more accurately translated, the “authorized”
magisterium, refers only to the person who properly holds the office to which
the Magisterium is attached. The Magisterium
is the teaching power of the Church. It
is by its very nature, and cannot be otherwise, “authentic,” since it is Christ
Himself teaching through the Church He founded.
The Motu Proprio, Ecclesia
Dei, is an act of the “authentic magisterium” because it is an act by the person
who holds the office to which the Magisterium
of the Church is attached, but it is not an act of the Church’s Magisterium. The distinction is important because there
are historical examples where the “authentic magisterium” has not acted in
accord with the Magisterium of the
Church. The Catholic faithful owe a
submission of “divine and Catholic faith” to the Church’s Magisterium but not so to every act of the “authentic magisterium”
unless that act is also an act of the Church’s Magisterium. Rev. King
confuses the terminology and implies that disobedience to the “authentic
magisterium” is what constitutes heresy.
He is accusing Traditional Catholics of following the “unauthentic
magisterium.” For Rev. King, the
“unauthentic” is grounded in Catholic Tradition. His presupposition is that the “authentic” is
whatever pours out of his little office.
The problem for Rev. King is that without Tradition, there is no, nor
could there ever be, a Magisterium in
the first place.
Rev. King
closes with the presupposition that I suffer from “spiritual confusion,
emotional tantrum and scurrilous ad hominem attacks.” Again, he does not produce a single shred of
evidence to support this allegation, so it cannot be refuted. What has escaped the Pharisee King is that
such a charge without evidence is what an ad hominem argument is by
definition, and since there is no evidence that can be refuted, the method of
argument is by definition invalid. If I
were to call Rev. King a liar without producing the evidence of the lie, I
would be, like Rev. King, guilty of calumny.
To call a liar a liar is not an ad hominem argument. To call a
Pharisee a Pharisee is not an ad hominem attack. Canon Lawyer King’s claim that neither he nor
Bishop Dattilo “hold you in
personal contempt” is contrary to the very content and tone of his letter, not
to mention the historical facts over the past 14 years since Bishop Dattilo came to Harrisburg. The fact of the matter is that both Bishop Dattilo and Rev. King hold all Traditional Catholics in
“personal contempt.” This is evidenced
by years of contemptuous treatment of Traditional Catholics and Catholic
Tradition. God will be worshiped in this
diocese, the Faith will be taught in this diocese, Catholic morality will be
practiced in this diocese whether Bishop Dattilo and
Rev. King approve of it or not. Canon
law, the human law of the Church cannot by employed to nullify the Law of God.
Is it any
wonder why Rev. King has not responded to the two offers for him to enter into
a public debate? He would have the
opportunity to cross-examine, and the burden of being crossed-examined. He would have to define his terms, state and
defend his presumptions and structure valid arguments. Rev. King not only is a liar, a calumniator,
and a Pharisee, he is a disgrace to the priesthood and to his office.
David Drew
Chairman
Saints Peter
and Paul Roman Catholic Mission
P. O. Box
7352
York, PA
17408
717-792-2789
SS. Peter
and Paul Roman Catholic Chapel
129 South
Beaver Street
York, PA
17403