Can someone give me over view of this thread. I am completely lost. But why we are scared of legal issues over a thread is beyond me. Brother Al
Update on the discussion about Fr. Iannuzzi. On his blog, Emmett O'Regan replied to my post as follows: <<Brendan, its not a matter of breach of copyright, which pertains solely to civil law, but the breach of the moratorium, which concerns ecclesiastical law. Here we have the sole copyright holder and responsible ordinary explicitly stating that the works of Luisa Piccaretta may not be published, which obliges "everyone" to avoid any of her writings. The fact of the matter remains that Fr. Iannuzzi did not and does not have permission to publish these writings according to ecclesiastical law. The onus is on Fr. Iannuzzi to prove that he has not breached the moratorium, and I would suggest that both him and yourself raise your objections to the Secretariat of the Cause of Luisa. If the Secretariat affirms that Fr. Iannuzzi has not breached the moratorium, I will immediately retract any claims to contrary and will issue Fr Iannuzzi with a public apology. I would suggest reading Stephen Walford's books, Communion of Saints (particularly the epilogue) and Heralds of the Second Coming, as well as my own. 10 April 2017 at 07:28>> My response was as follows (I probably won't be putting any more updates here. In the future there might be more at Emmett's site https://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.com.au/ or my site www.divinewillschool.com ) Brendan Triffett said... You claim, Emmett, that the moratorium "obliges everyone to avoid any of her [Luisa's] writings". But if you had been more prudent, and actually done your research, you would know that this is not true. The Archbishop of Trani wrote in 2012: "Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable." I include below an excerpt from an unofficial translation of the Archbishop's third press release about the process of beatification and canonization of Luisa Piccarretta (emphasis in the original Italian and in the translation, a couple of typos removed from the translation). I am astounded that you did not even check your facts against this readily accessible document before proceeding as you did. <<4. Pending the outcome of this prayerful inquiry, I wish to address those who say that the writings contain doctrinal errors. This, today, is not endorsed by any ruling of the Holy See, nor by my staff. I would note that in this way the legitimate judgment of the Church is anticipated, causing a certain scandal to the faithful whom these writings have nourished spiritually, and giving rise to suspicions even among those of us who are zealous for the remainder of the Cause. Waiting for the judgment of the competent authority, I invite the most serious and thorough personal reading, meditation and reflection on these writings in the light of Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. 8. With joy I note also the news I receive, as groups that are inspired by the Divine Will are quick to strengthen the bonds of communion with their diocesan bishops, realizing that indispensable communion that puts them organically in the Local Church (Press, 30 May 2008). I repeat, therefore, that the initiatives that are taken in reference to the spirituality of Luisa, such as conferences, days of spirituality, prayer meetings, etc., to give peace of mind to those who participate, must be authorized by their Bishop (Letter dated 24 November 2003). 9. Necessary prudence cannot deaden the ardor of those who feel compelled to spread the knowledge of the sanctity of life of the Servant of God, to recommend reading the writings, (and) to inspire the making of trusting prayer for her beatification. All this is not only not forbidden but it is desirable. As well as, an invitation to strengthen the unity and communion among sister dioceses in which are found individuals, groups and associations inspired by the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta and know her writings (Final Communiqué, 28 October 2005).>> The original was published on the 1st of November 2012 and can be found at the official website for the cause of Luisa's beatification. http://www.causaluisapiccarreta.it/pagine/testo.aspx?codpage=COM_30 Unofficial translation found at https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Luisa_Piccarreta1112.htm In Christ, Brendan Triffett, PhD www.divinewillschool.com>>
Hi josephite No I don't mind you asking! I looked at the work of John Milbank (but also Aquinas and Jean-Luc Marion) and covered some themes that cross over between theology and philosophy: gift and participation. I have a PhD in philosophy. A link to the thesis and another publication can be found here https://www.divinewillschool.com/about.html The thesis needs some serious reworking before it can be more readable! God bless! Brendan
Hi Brother. Someone suggested that Fr. Iannuzzi was threatening to sue Emmett O'Regan for libel (I'm not sure if that's actually true though). Padraig was worried he might be caught up in the lawsuit given that he runs this forum. BPT
Well Padraig probably got that idea from the response by Fr Iannuzzi. 'This statement in civil terms constitutes libel and it comes from the mouth of this Emmet. I can assure you that this loose cannon will be held accountable for his libelous transgressions at the hands of a Catholic canon lawyer and a civil attorney. It appears Emmit's falsities are going to catch up with him very, very soon.' Hardly the way the saints handled controversy. He has shown his real self here.Fr Iannuzzi needs to calm down.
This is a dreadful episode between these two individuals. I do hope it is resolved amicably but the omens do not look good. One party alleges that the other has committed "libel" against a priest in good-standing and is a "loose canon" whose "falsities" will catch up with him. The other party claims that the aforementioned cleric is acting "against an Archbishop's moratorium" and "uses the writings of Luisa Piccaretta to advance his millennial" heresies in a manner which "is damaging her cause." Wow. Pretty loaded and hefty allegations flying both ways here. Accusations of libel and personal character assassination on the one hand against Emmett, and accusations of flagrantly infringing ecclesiastical law, heresy and damaging a cause for canonization against Fr. Iannuzzi on the other. Horrible business and during Holy Week, of all times! I feel like I've accidentally stepped into a minefield....blimey..... Both persons involved are in my prayers, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the dispute.
I agree Vouthon that this is far from ideal, and prayers are needed. I am inclined to believe that Fr. Iannuzzi has not done anything improportionate, given that Emmett fired the first shot at Fr. Iannuzzi. It is important to remember that Emmett has not simply claimed that Fr. Iannuzzi is theologically wrong on a certain matter - that can be quite acceptable - but has acted to damage the person and reputation of Father through a misleading publication. There's nothing wrong with showing a bit of clout sometimes to defend yourself, and protect boundaries. Mac said: "Hardly the way the saints handled controversy. He has shown his real self here. Fr Iannuzzi needs to calm down." I have to disagree. Holiness and humility do not demand laying oneself as a doormat to others. Sanctity sometimes takes that expression, but it need not. St. Padre Pio, St. Joan of Arc, St. Athanasius had fight in them. The words you've quoted from Fr. Iannuzzi are not disrespectful, and I see nothing there that would imply that Fr. Iannuzzi has sinned with the tongue or pen. These words do not depersonalise or belittle or attack the person. They are stern words--but stern words have a place. When Fr. Iannuzzi's response is put in context--and if we consider that O'Regan appears to be incorrugible and rash--it is not an irrational and emotional outburst (so he does not need to "calm down"), but a rational and just response. Anger as such is not a sin. Let's do away with the false idea that being "sweet and nice" and "meek and mild" is essential to sanctity. (Dr) Brendan Triffett www.divinewillschool.com
No he did not--like I said, just strong words. Which is commendable, especially given that he wrote his response in a hurry. See here https://danieloconnor.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/fr-iannuzzi-response-to-mr-oregan.pdf
Padre Pio had the fight but it was usually about the salvation of souls. He never fought to protect himself. He humble accepted everything as the will of God. I have no idea what is going on but Fr. Fighting to protect himself is not the way of saints.
fallen saint, I can't agree with you. If someone were to accuse you publically of being a heretic, or a murderer, or a paedophile, would you just suck it up and say, "well, this is the will of God, and I humbly accept it"? Would you remain silent in court, not appearing in court at your hearing, and just accept going to jail for a long sentence? And suppose you did speak up (truthfully) and fight for yourself (justly) and successfully avoided jail--would that be a sin? Would you have to take that to confession? Of course not! Accepting what is ultimately not under our control is one thing. Passively going along with whatever happens to us in life, saying that it is the will of God, is quite another. That is actually quietism, which is a heresy. Defending oneself (or even fighting on behalf of another) is not necessarily nasty or sinful, even though it will be an expression of strength, confidence, and self-respect. Fighting for oneself (or someone else) can certainly be done in the Will of God. True, sometimes a saint will not fight back (when physically attacked, or when morally attacked) for one reason or another. But it would be far too simplistic to say that sanctity always requires this. Moreover, just because Fr. Iannuzzi is defending himself, that does not mean he is selfish or egocentric. For one thing, his primary motivation may well be to defend God's work from falling into disrepute, which might steal the truth from souls, against the Will of God. Brendan Triffett www.divinewillschool.com
For once, I'm in full agreement with Fallen Saint. While I know nothing about Emmet or Fr. Iannuzzi and very little about Luisa Piccaretta, one Catholic threatening another with action under civil law (people don't take the advice of civil lawyers to settle disputes under Church law) is not very saintly. That doesn't excuse Emmet's part in this very unsavoury matter. Vouthan's suggestion makes sense. Perhaps both parties need a dose of humility, discuss their differences face to face and try to find an amicable solution to their dispute. I would add that it's unfair on Padraig to use his forum as a battle ground.
Nothing like a good laugh to start the morning and get the blood flowing, but then... Safe in the Father's Arms!
Brenden, You compared Fr. to some very spiritual saints. There are some fights one must fight and some that one must endure. I just responded to a comment. I will again say..,I don't understand arguments because I really haven't read thread. But if this is about spiritual writings and what God wants (Will of God). Then in my opinion, he is not handling it properly. But then again don't know squat about either party. It would be interesting to know what is the percentage of priest that have filed civil lawsuits. I would say not many.
No, it most certainly is not. For one, it violates 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 where Paul condemns Christians’ taking grievances against each other in the form of lawsuits to secular courts: 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 Lawsuits among Believers 6 When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? 4 If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, 6 but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that? 7 In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that.
Brendan, You write logically as well as intelligently but without the one main component. And that is God. There is the great mystery of the grace of humility. And that comes with the knowledge that God is real. Once you reach that state...being called a heretic would mean nothing. You would continue to work as if nothing is going on. Because in the big picture it means nothing. If the church begins to investigate and they ask you to stop. In all humility you stop. That is how a spiritually enlightened person lives. I understand those are few and far between but that is the journey of the Saint. And it really comes down to this. A spiritually strong Saint knows if it is God Will it will happen through him or through someone else. It shows lack of humility...if you think you are the only one. God can do anything. If God wants writings to be distributed throughout the world. He can choose anyone. Then again, maybe God wants to slow down the writings and bring father innanuzi closer to God..,with the grace of humility. Brother al
Thanks for find the Bible passage. I was too lazy too look it up. This is a nasty business and doesn't reflect well on either party. It was mention of getting advice from a civil lawyer that rang warning bells for me. Other than that, I don't know enough about the matter to form an opinion and, in all honesty, I feel the less I know about it the better.
The long discussion [170+ comments] over on Emmets site have come to an end.https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6767475475753279918&postID=5191706449396371114 Brendan Triffett has to concede that Fr Iannuzzi's teachings were millenarianism in the modern academic sense . Mark Mallett, Peter Bannister, Daniel O'Connor and the others wouldn't concede this point. Emmet has shown beyond all doubt that the Catechism is using the term millenarianism in this modern academic sense, since "secular messianism" is explicitly identified as its worst form. And secular messianism definitely is nothing to do with Christ coming in the Flesh to reign with the saints. Triffett attempted to put this down to a "grammatical awkwardness" before retreating. Cardinal Ratzinger and various other Catholic theologians have been using the word millenarianism in this broader sense for years before the Catechism was written. Good work Emmett.
1 Corinthians 6:1 When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! St Paul is quite direct about taking lawsuits against each other. But this becomes ten times more directed in religious matters. I know on this and other Catholic sites we have out little blowups from time to time (some maybe not so little) but it strikes me that taking someone to court is very cold blooded and planned. I don't know the whole ins and outs of this and I don't really want to , but taking people to court over matters like this is not the way to go. One way is the way of Padre Pio and the other saints. Just to walk away from things and turn to prayer. Keeping silent as Jesus was quiet before his accusers. Letting God speak for us, if you like. But then I suppose its easy for me to say as I am not in the middle of it all. But if people bring such intense disputes onto this forum with the chance of legal action, then no, its too much. Who needs it? They didn't start here and I hope they don't wind up in Court here.
