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” defined 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 Magisterium of the Church being exercised by a 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.”
Rev. King implies that there is an “authentic Magisterium” and
consequently an “unauthentic” one. Rev.
King 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 17404
717-792-2789
SS.
Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Chapel
129
South Beaver Street
York,
PA 17403