Talk:Francis Schuckardt

It seems Francis Schuckardt has an advocate here. One who even indicates others shouldn't edit. I don't know enough about it to judge this Francis Schukhardt person. Although some of these edits seem rather spurious. Catholicism doesn't consider adultery any kind of excuse for divorce and never did. In fact the Council of Trent specifically forbade divorced people from remarrying even if they were the spouse being cheated on. There's other oddities too.--T. Anthony 06:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

On closer reading this is become very close to POV with much of the sources of new information being Stuckhardt himself.--T. Anthony 06:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also Miranda Prorsus went on to say It is one of television's advantages that it induces both old and young to remain at home; it can have, as a result, considerable influence in strengthening the bonds of loyalty and love within the family circle, provided the screen displays nothing which is contrary to those same virtues of loyalty and chaste love. Although he wanted people to avoid TV he deemed immoral he was clearly indicating even kids watching TV can be a good and fine thing. (Although I'd concede the article may have been too biased the other way before)--T. Anthony 07:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer: You have one here who is putting forth the truth based upon facts. I am an advocate for the truth, I would hope that no one would find that objectionable.

Wikipedia posted the don't edit sign, not me.

You are right, Catholicism does not consider adultery (or any other act) an excuse for divorce. The article outlines Catholic law regarding "separation," it does not mention divorce.

I don't know what you mean by POV? - Frater John

Oh I was likely overheated that day. Don't worry about it. Just try to keep a balance as he clearly has detractors no matter how much you admire him.--T. Anthony 15:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Language

Would the person who is editing the page create an account and identify him/herself.

It looks like you have added some good factual information and provided extensive citation. Thank you.

I would caution the editor, however, to avoid using any language that is based on opinon and not fact. For example, changing "felt the need" to "recognized the need" regarding the perceived need to accept episcopal consecration to "preserve Apostolic succesion" is a matter of opinion. It is a fact that Schuckardt felt the need, it is debatable if there was a real need.

Keep the writing professional and objective. --James Reyes 23:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My name is Fra. John Francis Marie, CMRI and yes, I know Bishop Schuckardt personally. Your criticism is duly noted and I will make the correction. Thank you. - Frater John

Thank you Frater John Francis Marie. I've been interested in Bp. Shuckardt's story over the years. I find the traditional Catholic movement very interesting, and don't mean that in any disrespectful way. Thanks again for the good information you have added to this article. I think it is very valuable. Would you be willing to add several photographs of the Bishop to the article when you roll out your edit? I think visuals are always helpful. --James Reyes 01:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To James Reyes: You should not allow your obvious prejudice to cloud clear thinking and honest editing. You have removed demonstrable facts and replaced some of them with non-demonstrable opinions. This defeats the very thing Wikipedia is trying to achieve: verifable facts. Let's put aside personal feelings and put forward facts only; there are plenty of other venues available to you to express personal opinions. Thanks. Fra. John

Frater John: I have no predjucices as I am not even a Catholic but someone with an academic interest in the traditional Catholic movement. I reverted the article temporarily as the prose was poorly composed, such as the list of accusations with retractions. A more professional style would be to include the accusations in one paragraph or section and then the responses in the other. Further, removing links, such as link to the article on Pope Paul VI as well as removing his title "Pope" (Pope is part of Paul VI's article title) is clearly biased. I know that you are a sedevacantist. The fact remains that Paul VI's proper title is Pope as he is generally regarded as such, and even if one were to deny that he were the legitimate "Successor of Peter", his title is still Pope within his own church.

Further, Schuckardt was a layman when he denounced Paul VI as a false pope. The use of the verbiage, "being the first Catholic bishop to denounce Paul VI as a false pope and to denounce Vatican Council II as a false council" is confusing to the uninformed reader. It makes it seem as if Shuckardt denounced Paul VI and the council as a member of the established Catholic heirarchy. Come on! Keep the polemical tone and wishful thinking out of this article and contribute to a professionally written and informative article. Nothing should attempt to mislead the reader. --James Reyes 08:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Fra. John: Regarding Father Denis' death, you write, "Rev. Chicoine died on August 10, 1995. He reportedly had a change of heart on his deathbed and lamented rebelling against Bishop Schuckardt. His excommunication was still in effect at the time of his death." Where did you hear that Fr. Denis had such sentiments? This is seems more like a wishful fabrication on your part rather than anything derived from fact. --James Reyes 10:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

James Reyes (12/7/05): You're at it again. You're litering this article with partisan, non-verifiable statements. You claim that you are not partisan, but your writing indicates otherwise. Do you deny that you were at attendence when Pivarunas received his so-called "consecration"? I have sources that place you there. I had the honesty of telling everyone up front who I was. Why don't you be honest enough to do the same and admit you are a Mount surrogate.

Again, this is not an opinion page. I verified my statements with 57 footnotes so that the reader could see these were indeed facts, not opinions. Do not insert disputed statements with verifying them. If you cannot write impartially, then let someone who can edit this page.

Regarding your question about Chicoine's death. A witness told me of his change of heart on his deathbed, but this person fears reprisials and so wishes to remain anonymous. That makes it a non-verifiable statement and as such I do not object to its removal. But it is a verifiable fact that Bishop Schuckardt formally excommunicated Chicoine and never removed that excommunication, that statement should be put back in. - Frater John

Fra. John: I am not a "Mount surrogate". I was but am no longer a practicing Catholic. I do not deny that I was present at Bishop Pivarunas' consecration, as I said so in the talk page of Pivarunas' article. My interest in this at this point is academic as I am doing work researching Episcopi Vagantes. Further you place high value in Schuckardt's "excommunication" of Fr. Denis as if Schuckardt had the jurisdiction to do so? I know you think he did, but just because a handful of people belive so, doesn't make it so. I think it's an irrelevent point that hardly deserves mention. --James Reyes 07:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

James Reyes (12/13/05): It is a verifiable fact that Bishop Schuckardt verbally and in official writings published excommunicates against Chicoine, Pivarunas, and others involved with his overthrow. He performed the deed and witnesses and court records bear this out.

Whether these excommunications are accepted or rejected as being valid or licit is another topic and does not in any way affect the fact that he performed the act. You say that just because a handful of people believe he had jurisdiction that it doesn't make it so. Neither does it make is so if a majority of people believe otherwise. People's opinions, whether a majority or an minority, do not affect the facts about something. The vast majority of the people use to believe that the earth was flat, do you honestly believe that this opinion changed the actual shape of the earth even a centimeter?

Again, it is a verifiable fact that Bishop Schuckardt performed the excommunications and this fact should remain. - Frater John

Fra John: Where can I go to see the order of Excommunication? If I can see it then I will agree in adding to the article. GW 1000 12 January 06

Complete Rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite as it fails to meet the standards of Wikipedia. Particularly, the sections on Schuckardt's expulsion from Mt. St. Michael. It's a sloppy article.

James Reyes: I agree that it is a sloppy article and a rewrite is called for. It was out of deference to keeping your original write as complete as possible that the editing took on such a clumsy nature. Let's keep the partisan accusations out and stick to verifiable facts. We would then have a useful piece of historical information. - Frater John

I think the problem here is the value that is placed on various facts. From your perspective, Schuckardt is a pretty important guy. You think he is the only true Catholic bishop in world, and if that were true, if he were the sole caretaker of 2,000 years of Christian tradition, I would agree with you totally. You give importance to his decrees of excommunication, etc, such as his "excommunication" of Chicoine, for example. In my opinion, a vast majority of readers would find it wholly irrelevant. It doesn't have the same historical significance as the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I by Pope Pius V, for example, not by a long-shot. I don’t want to see the article littered and needlessly inflated with irrelevancies which are really only important to 100 or so people in the whole world.

Please refer to the Wikipedia NPOV policy on Undue weight. I know you doubt my sincerity, Frater John, but I don’t have an ax to grind here. I feel we have both made quality contributions, you especially, to this article and I sincerely wish to see this article mature into a quality article with NPOV. --James Reyes 07:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

James Reyes (12/13/05): Part of the problem with you writing this article is that whether you are aware of it or not, you have certain prejudices. You often project your opinion as if it were factual. For example: you attribute to me the belief that I think that Bishop Schuckardt is the only true Catholic bishop in the world, yet I never said that nor can you present any evidence that I believe that.

You argue that the excommunications do not have the same historical significance as Elizabeth's excommunication. True, but neither does anything else the small smathering of traditional Catholics do or say. You can't have it both ways; if it is worth writing about at all, it should contain all relevant facts. The fact of an excommunication is a very important issue with Catholics and much of canon law is dedicated to it. The fact of an excommunication has major implications upon anyone who may have incurred it and in the past has altered the course of history. It is a big thing. Our own civil courts even give regonition to a church's hierarchy issuing excommunications, without however, weighing in as to their validity, it being a non-secular matter.

FYI - a lot more than 100 people believe in the jurisdictions of bishops. In fact, except for small number of sedevacantists, who developed this formal/material church concept, (not founded upon right reason or historical doctrine, but upon a need for personal survival) the vast majority of those who are Catholic, both historically and persently, admit to the jurisdiction of bishops. - Frater John

I agree that the article needs a complete re-write because the facts are watered down with Schuckardt sympathetic feelings. It doesn't seem possible because the likes of Fra John Francis Belzac will continue to alter the article to fit thier untruthful ideas as to how the events really unfolded. George Wagner 1400, 07 January 06

"Tridentine Rite Catholic Church"

The Francis Shuckardt page is an eye-opener. Yes, the text is badly done and can be improved, yet it provides information that I have not had. I think the credit goes to Frater John.

However, I would like information on the "Tridentine Rite Catholic Church" or "Tridentine Latin Rite Church", which I first encountered on Terence O'Boyle's website; against O'Boyle, Fr. Morrison of Traditio.com insists that there is or was no such thing, and that it has been fabricated by O'Boyle out of his fertile imagination. I have not been able to find evidence one way or the other. Can you confirm the claim that Francis Shuckardt had organized his following under this name?

I had always accepted the allegation that Shuckardt had proclaimed himself Pope Adrian, but I have also agreed that Brown's orders were valid and also his consecration of Shuckardt.

WikiSceptic 10:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

From Frater John: It's a sad reality that so many of these traditional sites contain much mis-information. It is the "Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church," this can be verified by viewing the old Church corporations which state the they held property in trust for the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church.

The allegation that Bishop Schuckardt proclaimed himself a pope is false. There is no evidence that he ever did so for the simple reason that he didn't do it. The allegation first surfaced when Chicoine and friends ousted the Bishop in 1984 and this was done to discredit him and to convince the people to side with Chicoine. It worked and they wrangled from the Bishop a large church worth millions of dollars. They clearly had motivation to lie and their statements carry little to no factual weight. Louis Kerfoot was foremost in attacking Bishop Schuckardt and was one of the most vocal in making this false allegation(He has since left the priesthood and married a nun with final vows). When Bishop Schuckardt's house was searched by a SWAT team, Kerfoot accompanied them throughout the entire house to "identify corporation property." Do you doubt that if Kerfoot had found anything to substantiate this allegation, that he wouldn't have shouted it from the housetops? He found nothing because the allegation is not true. - Frater John

Fra. John: I am curious, what you believe Fr. Denis et al's motivation was for ousting Bishop Schuckardt since you claim all of Fr. Denis' allegations were false. JamesReyes 07:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

James Reyes (12/13/05): Bishop Schuckardt had come to the conclusion in the early 1980's that Chicoine and many of the other Religious who were running things were either incompetent or untrustworthy (some of the things you attribute to the Bishop, particularly the excessive disciplining of children, were the doings of Chicoine and his friends, and the Bishop strongly opposed such conduct). This was common knowledge among the clergy and Religious superiors because the Bishop had meetings with them and told them so. It was also common knowledge that he was training some younger Religious to take over running the Church. Chicoine use to scream at the Bishop: "Whose vicar general, me or Fidelis?"

Chicoine and his followers were faced with the humbling prospect of stepping down or revolting and taking over. They chose the later. What they had to gain is obvious, millions of dollars worth of Church assets and their positions. People lie and do bad things for much less. - Frater John

Fra. John: I will attest to the fact that Mr. Reyes is correct when he states that the group believes that Schuckadt is the only valid bishop in the world. I heard it among your faithful, "brothers" and religious on more than one occasion. If there are other bishops out there you would discredit them all together. Next, in regards to your justification and logic on why Chicoine "revolted" against Schuckardt, you should apply the same logic to your current situation. How can a lay man, a priest or a bishop alone denounce the POPE? You have not the right or the power to do so. It will take future Popes and Councils of the church to denounce the issues regarding V II and the Liturgical reforms. George Wagner 14:17, 03 January 2006

George Wagner: I have never denied that some of our Church members believe Bishop Schuckardt to be the last known valid Catholic bishop; I challenged James Reyes' claim in attributing that belief to me. You may have heard it from some of us, but since I have never met you, as I'm sure a lot of other Church members have never met you, you cannot universally apply that believe to every Church member. We need to deal with the facts.

Regarding your second question and statement, you are right: no lay man, priest or bishop alone can denounce the pope. But Church law and right reason both tell us that a heretic, even if "validly" elected to the papacy, would loose that position by "tacit resignation" and therefore cannot be the pope. If true popes could teach heresy, then the whole Catholic Church is a farse and Christ would be guilty of establishing a church which could led man into error - that of course would be blasphemous. Fra. John - 01/05/06

Fra. John: I know for a fact that Schuckardt was the driving force behind punistments on children and religious because I have talked to the superiors and teachers at length about this. I also know that this still goes on because I witnessed it first hand at you mass gatherings and I saw the video on the Date Line NBC. So to say it was "Chicoine and friends" is a lie and fabrication. All the non-sense and beatings stopped when your "faction" left in 1984 (I was a student). As for Father Denis having a change of heart on his death bed, it's a lie because I was there. The very fact that Schuckardt issued an "excommunication" against him or anyone made no difference at all. If anything he wished the whole thing never happened, so believe what you want.

Next in regards to homosexual conduct with Schuckardt and the brothers(either with each other or against children), I have talked to and know people who were abused by brothers (from the priory) or had been propositioned by Schuckardt himself. I could go on and on....

In regards to the catholicity of your group, I can't see how on earth you are the Church. You are united under no one, you don't even attempt to teach, rule and sanctify. This is a fact because your "HOLY BISHOP" hasn't ordained any new priests in over 20 years and your novices are perpetually in that state. There is no growth and you can't deny that. He doesn't even appear for his duties as a bishop (I know, because he is so sick). Bishop Musey fulfilled his duties even when he couldn't muster the strength.

Frater, I have no ill will toward your group, rather I feel sorry that Schuckardt became what he is and hope and pray God has mercy when it's his time. George Wagner 1800 05 January 06

George Wagner: You don't know it for a fact because neither you nor anyone else can produce any evidence that he commanded, let alone condoned, the physical abuse alleged in this article. Hearsay from partisans who have profitted by his expulsion hardly constitute facts. Are you claiming that you witnessed the abuse described in this article first hand? If you are making that claim, I challenge it. If you beleive everything you see on TV, then you need to do a serious reality check.

I don't know if the physical abuse stopped in 1984 or not, but I do know for a fact that Chicoine ordered the heads of the girl students to be shaved, because I was his companion during one incident and heard him tell the Sisters that part of the punishment to be inflicted on the accussed was to shave their heads. If he straightened out after 1984, I'm glad to hear it.

Others claim to have been with Chicoine the day he died and stated that he did have a change of heart. Were you there the "day" he died? To me it is of little consequence one way of the other and I'm surprised by the big deal you and others are making of it. I agreed to remove it from the article because for once James Reyes was right, it was not a verifable statement. If only you and he would also adhere to the policy set down by Wikipedia of verifying statements, but you don't.

If you think being subject to an excommunication makes no difference, then you are demonstrating your ignorance of Catholicism. It is a big deal.

I'm always amused by everyone else's concern about what they view as our stagnation; what's it to you? If we are not bothered by it, then why should you not rejoice; we're terminal!

The rest of your stuff I think has already been answered in the article. You are clearly a Mount partisan and you are entitled to believe whatever you want. I'm sure there is nothing I could say to cause you to change your mind. That's fine. But Wikipedia was not founded to give occasion to partisan ramblings. You have removed verified statements of the very best order simply because they were not to you liking. If you want to live in a bubble, that's your choice, but other should have the opportunity to decide for themselves from the FACTS, not from wishful thinking. - Frater John

Frater John: You are correct on the one fact that I never heard Fr. Denis issue an order and maybe he did. He was also under orders from his superior(Schuckardt)and was obedient. But I have talked to witness who took orders from Schuckardt in regards to the severe punishments. The condition of the school and the church vastly improved after Shuckardt was expelled. In regards to the abuse of children in your group, wouldn't you say that keeping young children up till 1100 at night, kneeling on a tile surface for hours while brothers are smacking them around isn't abuse? And what I saw on tv wasn't terrible psychological abuse(the video)? In regards to the article, YES, I witnessed it every day at school(until 84'). If your Bishop is so innocent, then why didn't he stop it? And what about the Mike Muratore, your nephew Steve Belzak and Justin Kirkland who are charged with sexual misconduct? All three have been caught and are facing charges.

First of all who are the others at Fr. Denis' bedside? Because I can name everyone in the room at the time including myself! He Was in a COMA!!! Thus it is not a fact.

Excommunication is a big deal. But Excommunication by a bishop with illegal(schismatic orders)is no more valid than I'm the Pope. His lineage is from a schismatic sect which pusts him outside the church. I have read how and why he did what he did, but that doesn't change that facts of why it was wrong. Those priests and bishops who had valid orders before the changes went about it the right way(Thuc etc.). All in all, James is correct, your statement about Fr. Denis' "Excommunication" is irrelevant. If Schuckardt were to excommunicate me today it wouldn't matter because his order may be valid but they are definately illicit.

Stagnation is an issue. The true church of Christ isn't a stagnant institution. The church is alive in it's teachings and is here for the salvation of souls. If Schuckardt were so concerned about the mission of the church the group would be producing in the seminaries and the convent to better spread the word of God. even though he is (allegedly) sick he should be doing more for the church especially now in the time of crisis. Bottom line is this: You are in every way a CULT, which is the greatest fact of the article. You give Catholicism a bad name.

I am not a MOUNT partisan because as long as the mass is valid I will attend any other group even Fraternity of St. Peter). You are the one adding the element of feeling towards Schuckardt making him look like he was so wrongly ousted from power. The truth of the matter is that he was/is a homosexual((verifiable fact)I personally know people he propositioned and former brothers he told to go buy gay porn), that he was behind the abuse and that he did nothing to stop it(verifiable fact), and that he is a destructive cult leader(verifiable fact).

It's not a matter of changing my mind on the group. I look at the fruits and the above information is correct. You can't prove to me otherwise because I took it upon myself to infiltrate your group and saw that it IS as it WAS. And don't think for a minute that I haven't researched and talked to relevant witnesses. I bet if you were to ask Bp. Pivarunas or anyone at the STM to talk about the situation they would have no problem. If they were to ask you for the same, the answer would be NO, that is why I had to sneak into your group to validate my suspicions and now my statements.

This article is to inform people as to true happenings before and after June of 84. Don't distort the truth. GW 1815 09 January 06

Discussion Page not a Soapbox for Partisan Theories

George Wagner et al: The Wikipedia discussion page is set up to discuss the accurate and constructive development of an article, it is not a chat room or a soapbox for partisan theories. Thus I am not going to respond any further on this discussion page to your various accusations, there is clearly no persuading you and I don't intend to engage in fruitless dialogue. I will, however, make a last response to your latest series of accusations so that the reader does not falsely conclude that you are somehow correct.

You claim that Chicoine took orders from the Bishop and was obedient. That is not altogether correct. I lived with Chicoine at the Priory for about 4 years. I was his favorite Brother and his daily jogging partner. I knew him well and he confided a lot of things to me during this period, especially during our daily jogs. I knew his strengths and I knew his weaknesses. It is erroneous to say that he practiced habitual obedience. He practiced obedience in most things, but in other things he was habitually disobedient.

It was rare that the children would be kept up to 11:00pm, but when it did happen, it was not abusive. It would only have been abusive if they suffered from a sleep deprivation as a result of it, but they do not.

Regarding kneeling on hard surfaces: some of the facilities we use do have tile floors, as all Church members are well aware of, and they certainly can, as many do, bring with them something soft to kneel on. Some of the children (and adults) kneel on the hard surface in an effort to make reparation to God, as Our Lady of La Salette and Fatima requested, and it is something to be applauded, not criticized.

It is not Church policy to “smack children around” as you claim, and taking into consideration your open hostility to our Church, there should be no difficulty in concluding that you speak with exaggeration. We do, however, approve of moderate corporal discipline when called for, and this of course is in keeping with Catholic teaching and practice.

When you refer to the video you saw on TV, I presume you are referring to the tape of someone dressed up like the devil who was terrorizing little girls; well, for once I agree with you, it was over the top. Neither the Bishop nor I was aware of it until it was broadcast on TV and I have since chastised those involved – it will not happen again. But having said that, it must be viewed for what it really was, not for what the sensationalistic-hungry, anti-Christian TV station falsely reported. It was not a Church ritual and the video itself disproves it. A male hierarchy runs the Catholic Church, especially the traditional Catholic Church. Any official Church ceremony or ritual who have had a least one cleric presiding over it, but the tape clearly shows not only the absence of any cleric, but even the absence of any man (the person wearing the devil’s mask was female, as a cursory examination will reveal). The reason for this is that is was not a Church ritual or ceremony; it was a women’s Halloween party, plain and simple. One, in which they got carried away, granted, but nevertheless a Halloween party. It is noteworthy that the person videotaping the party was (according to all witnesses), vigorously encouraging this woman in scaring the little girls. She is now the very one who is supposed so horrified by it. The hypocrisy is thick.

You claim you “witnessed everyday” at school at Mt. St. Michaels the abuse this article accuses Bishop Schuckardt of. But I don’t think you witnessed everyday “excessive numbers of spankings with wooden boards or razor straps… forcing children to eat soap or have jalapeño peppers shoved down their throats.” It is inconceivable that in a school with hundreds of children that this kind of abuse could be happening everyday and someone not report it to the authorities. In making such an outrageous claim you simply bring discredit upon yourself, because no reasonable person would believe that such a thing could be possible in today’s society, unnoticed and unreported.

You ask why didn’t the Bishop stop it? Firstly, I believe that most of the accusations are false or grossly exaggerated. Secondly, if there is some element of truth to it, it was not condoned by him; on the contrary, it would have been condemned. When he was young he taught school, yet I’m an unaware of any accusations against him for disciplining too severely; that is because he does not believe in excessive disciplining; ex-marine Chicoine better fits that profile. Thirdly, as alluded to above, many of the Religious and clergy were rebellious and disobedient, and because he was bed-ridden he depended on Chicoine, as his Vical General, to carry out his directives; but I know for a fact that Chicoine frequently did not.

Regarding the molestation charges – it is a fact that one teenager, when 14, was guilty of statutory molestation against a young boy; and even though the young boy was more than a willing participant, the age difference made it a crime. The teenager openly admitted to his wrongdoing, denied the false accusations the boy leveled at him, passed a polygraph test, and was sentenced to probation. Neither the Church nor the state condones such behavior. The other two are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. They will get their day in court. You are wrong in asserting that all 3 were caught. The fact of the matter is that all 3 turned themselves in.

Once again, whether or not Chicoine was contrite on his deathbed or not is really not an issue with me. If you want to claim he wasn’t contrite, I don’t care to argue it. What is certain, however, is that he died without the excommunication ever being lifted.

Your argument on excommunication is convoluted. The article clearly shows that Bishop Brown returned to the Catholic Faith before he consecrated Bishop Schuckardt as a Roman Catholic Bishop, so Bishop Schuckardt does not have “schismatic orders” and therefore is not outside the Church. You further argue that his consecration was illegal and therefore his acts would be illicit. According to whom? The Vatican II Church? Not only is that irrelevant to Sedevacantists, but the Vatican II Church also declared that Thuc’s consecrations were illicit, so why would Thuc’s “illicit” actions be valid and Bishop Schuckardt’s “illicit” actions be invalid? Furthermore, Chicoine himself believed that Bishop Schuckardt’s orders were both valid and licit, and spend many years arguing that point to others (that is until he found himself excommunicated), and since he is one of the subjects of the excommunication under discussion, he can’t have it both ways. If his excommunication was illicit because Bishop Schuckardt lacked licitness, then so were all of Chicoine's Orders, clerical positions, sacraments,… But none of this has a great deal of relevance regarding Chicoine and his allies, because some of their ecclesiastical crimes (particularly: contrivance against ecclesiastical authority, summoning his Ordinary before a lay tribunal and impedance of ecclesiastical jurisdiction) carry with it an "ipso facto" excommunication, which means that the excommunication occurs without the necessity of an ecclesiastical judge inflicting it. Thus, even if you assume arguendo, that Bishop Schuckardt's acts lacked licitness, these particular penalties are automatically inflicted as soon as the crimes were committed, with or without the Bishop's input.

I never said the TLRCC is in a state of stagnation; that was your claim, based upon your erroneous belief that Bishop Schuckardt “hasn’t ordained any new priests in over 20 years and your novices are perpetually in that state.” The TRLCC has over 30 Religious teaching and guiding it. We do not need any more priests than we have. It is not the mission of the Church to produce both unfit and invalid “priests” to spread every kind of opinion and theological error each one happens to take a fancy to; that is what the Protestants and phony traditionalists do. The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls, which cannot be accomplished by non-Catholics who call themselves Catholics, because in denying one or more of Her doctrines, either in fact or in practice, they have placed themselves outside the Catholic Church.

It is a fact known to everyone who knows Bishop Schuckardt, that he suffers from many ailments. His illness was one of Chicoine’s arguments as to why Bishop Schuckardt should be ousted; many people heard him announce it and I have it on audio tape. When you state that he “is (allegedly) sick,” you once again discredit yourself as being an objective person and demonstrate you antagonistic bias.

Your allegations of cult, homosexuality and abuse have already been addressed in the article and it serves no purpose in repeating them here.

I have no desire to speak to Pivarunas or anyone else “about the situation” because I was there throughout it all (unlike most of them) and know the facts first-hand. I’ve had occasion to listen to Chicoine, Kerfoot, Drahman, Pivarunas and others lie under oath in open court (all for money) and understand the futility of discoursing with dishonest people who are not open to truth or reason.

You make reference to the idea that you had to sneak in, otherwise we would not talk to you. I’ve noticed that you people do a lot of sneaking. We are not afraid to talk to anyone who is not blindly hostile, such as you appear to me. But we also follow the teachings of Christ and His Church in not having purely social intercourse with those outside the faith, except to try to educate and explain the faith to them. If you deem this to be cultish, then you are condemning Christ, the Apostles, and the popes and councils of the Church as cults, because this is what They taught - read your New Testament.

Many of the things that you and your allies have accused us of in the article, in an effort to disparage us, have in fact been shown to be in complete conformity with the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church. Your response, when you are shown to be wrong, is the one we have become accustom to, this is, instead of arguing the facts, you engage in the politics of personal attacks and mud slinging. After showing that so much of what your leaders are telling you is incorrect, I find it amazing that you don’t question them and what they feed you, but apparently you don’t, which makes me ask, who is really the cult here? Who is really under mind control and unable to think rationally and independently?

In concluding, every significant practice we embrace can be traced to the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. If anyone can prove that we are mistaken in any particular issue, we will change. Have we as individuals made mistakes? Without question. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that if we could do some things over again differently, we certainly would. But it is wrong to condemn an institution for the mistakes its members make.

FINIS. Fra. John 1/14/06

Wikipedia Mediation: Here is evidence of Fra. John's bias

---

Fra. John: Can't you see that your last paragraph shown above shows blind bias? You claim to be able to edit the article without bias and yet you claim every significant practice of Schuckardt's destructive cult is unblemished. His practices have been repeatedly condemned by the man who consecrated him, by the Catholic Church, by organizations promulgating the Fatima message, by those who worked with him in his church from 1967 to 1984, by those who were his followers for many years, by those who complain of being terribly affected as children under his repressive grip, and by both local and national media. And yet, you claim that you will change! 40 years of evidence and you still can not see it. Those who read Wikipedia should not be subjected to information from a one-sided source since you yourself demonstrate that you can not see a single example of the many obvious distortions of Catholic teaching that have been placed on the followers of the man you blindly follow. Bernie Radecki, 02/20/2006 [Some poor use of words removed 03/15/06 by Bernie Radecki]

---

Frater John Francis - I think that you have some serious haters out there, especially GW. What a shame... Why do people hate BP. Schuckardt so much? Keep up the good work in trying to keep the article neutral. -Joe

Fra John: I don't have the time to answer your ramblings, but I will make one statement. In regards to the family who hosted me, the accusation that I advocated Hitler and Naziism is a complete fabrication and further more you WILL REMOVE IT!! I am an employee of the Federal Government and I will be counsulting an attornery. All it show is how far you people will go to discredit and ruin the good names of those who tell the truth. So, it behooves you to remove such slanderous and untruthful statements against me. I will reply when I find the time so the readers know the truth. GW

All editors need to follow Wiki policy - no non-verifiable statements, no removing verifiable statements

This is becoming a joke. The anti-Schuckardt editors are exercising duplicity. They freely add non-verifiable statements that fit their pre-existing prejudices and theories, and remove verifiable statements that do not. They can't have it both ways. If there is anything in this article that is disputed, it needs to be verified or else it should go.

I have left a lot of non-verifiable garbage in this article and have chosen to answer the accusations instead of erasing them, because I thought it would give the reader a better understanding of all the facts that surround the topic. They on the contrary, erase verifiable statements and add non-verifiable accusations in order to limit the reader to the "facts" they choose to disclose and hide from the reader the whole story. They should not attempt to form the opinion of the reader, let the reader form his/her own opinion based ON THE VERIFIABLE FACTS. Why is this concept so difficult for them to understand? Fra. John 1/14/06

A REQUEST FOR MEDIATION HAS BEEN FILED. Fra. John 1/19/06

Fra John: I have a question... You claim that Chicione was paranoid and slept with a loaded 38 under his pillow. If this is not public knowlkedge other than your personal experience, then it should not be added. If I can't add references from people I have spoken to about Schuckardt's seduction of young men then you are guilty of what you are preaching.

You clearly have your belief as to what happened and I have mine. The fact of the matter is that Schuckardt and company fled therefore possession is 9/10ths of the law. Sorry you can't have it both ways, if you(group)were so right you would have stayed and fought for what was right.

You're writings reflect clear bias towards Schuckardt especially in your wording. The Counterclaims and Accusaitions is poorly written and doens't match the format of an encylopedia not to mention that it is more of an essay of your belief of what happened. James Reyes had it down pat and then you aborted the article to your liking. I am in the process of re-writing the article to it's correct format.

I will leave the excommunication paragraph but I will make it fit the format and all other useless info will be deleted.

GW 0900 20 Jan 06

George Wagner: There is a double standard being applied in this article. If unverified accusations against the Bishop have a place here, then so do unverified statements regarding Chicoine, especially statements that put things into context and show a motive for why he did what he did. A one-sided story serves no one. The fact that Chicoine slept with a loaded .38 was known to probably everyone who lived with Chicoine, because he made so secret of it, and it certainly goes beyond just my own personal experience and knowledge.

You state that I have my belief as to what happened. Unlike you or James Reyes, what I have is more than just belief, I was there in the thick of it right from the start and know the facts. Unlike you or James Reyes, I am not reporting hearsay, I was an actual witness to the events and am reporting the facts from first-hand experience. There is quite a difference.

If my writings reflect a bias toward the Bishop, it is not an intentional bias. I have no objections to some more skilled writer redoing the Counterclaims and Answers to Accusations, provided, however, they do not change the content or remove the verifiable facts. Again, if an accusation has a place in this article, then an answer/counter accusation should be given an equal place. Give the reader all the facts and let them form their own opinions, to me this seems inherently just and fair, and I cannot understand why any person exercising objectivity would be oppossed to it.

As I noted above, I have filed for mediation. It is now time for all of us to holster our pistols and let someone who has no bias weigh in. Please stop the editing and allow the mediator an opportunity to do his/her job. I will stop at this point and I ask everyone else do please do the same.

Frater John - 1/20/06

Frater John: I agree with you. The wording needs to be changed as to not reflect a personal bias whether against or for the individual in question. I am doing more research at the moment and I concede that your fact about the girls who got their heads shaved is correct. I talked to a witness. But, I will assert that the orders(or training) were from a higher authority. I'm not saying that everyone on this side of the fence is completely innocent, nor is it on your side. It took years for things to correct and filter out.

I will agree that Schuckardt did a lot of good but he also did some bad. I have done a lot of study and don't quite agree with all the methods employed by your group. Catholicism shouldn' be rigorous in practice. Yes, the world is evil, but we have to live our faith in it and be good examples. Anyway, I just want to holster the pistols too....

We both need to agree on one thing: That injustices were done on both sides and that we are all human. So you have my word that I won't make any changes as of today, and I would like to come to an agreement on truth to finish the article professionally. I am willing to work with you as a professional in this regard. Contact me....

GW george.wagner@navy.mil 1214 06 Jan 20

George Wagner: I look forward to working with you on this article and I appreciate your candor and honesty in the above acknowledgement.

As I am sure that we will continue to have differences of opinion, it seems to me that the best way to approach this is to follow Wiki policy in all disagreements. I have been reveiwing Wiki policy and hope that you will do the same so that we can start from the same page and play by the same rules.

One of their guidelines states: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." Since the accusations in the article against the Bishop were put in by those who are clearly antagonistic against him, it seems the best way to balance it out is to have someone from the opposite spectrum do the responses and counterclaims - presumably me.

I would propose that before either one of us makes an edit that is likely to arouse controversy, that we post the proposed edit and see if consenus cannot first be reached. I'll start with a simple one: The three external sources listed should be removed because Wiki policy under the heading of verifiability states "personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources..."

I will contact you at your email address to try to resolve areas of dispute with you through this medium, but I recall reading somewhere that some controversies are best resolved on the Talk Page so the reader can understand how consenus was reached. - Fra. John juak1967@yahoo.com

February 15, 2006: Bernie Radecki: I do not think enough detail has been included in this article to show the degree to which the congregation gradually degenerated into a personality cult between the years 1974 and 1984. I think eye witness accounts of individuals who experienced the repressive rules instituted under Schuckardt need to be added since it demonstrates the obsessive control he gradually extended over the congregants. Little mention is made challenging his claim to jurisdiction. It is laughable that so much is made of his excommunication of Chicoine but no mention is made of the widespread view that his actions demonstrated his unfitness for a leadership role. It is a symptom of his distorted view of reality that he can excommunicate individuals but be answerable to no one himself.

Bernie Radecki: You are an obvious partisan, and that's okay. But Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not an opinion page in which one is allowed to vent their personal feelings of ill will. Nothing that you added to this article falls within the policy requirements of Wikipedia and was therefore extracted: neither "eye witness accounts" nor personal psychoanalyses of the Bishop constitute verifiable facts. As we mentioned above, there are plenty of tabloid-like venues out there were you can freely vent, but an encyclopedia is not one of these venues. Fra. John 2/16/06

Fra. John. You are obviously partisan, and that's okay. I do believe that eye witness accounts fall within the sphere of acceptable material for an article when they serve to illustrate a condition that existed at a certain point in history. Obviously you must be aware of the great amount of published information on the actions of Francis Schuckardt. I am equally sure that you will not accept excerpts of those articles as "non-partisan". It was primarily for this reason that I thought to add the "Eye witness section" thinking you would find statements by people who expereinced life in those days more palatable if the statements of fact werer made without commentary. I see that I was wrong. I will play by your rules. Please remember that you are not the editor. Do not remove my additions that are supported by published documentation. Bernie Radecki 2/16/2006

Bernie Radecki: I am not playing by my rules, Wikipedia sets the policy. Your additions are not supported by verifiable facts pursuant to Wiki policy and therefore have no place in this article. If you can support them by verifiable facts, then please do so; otherwise leave them out. Fra. John 2/17/06

Fra. John: I did not revert the article to again show the unsubstatiated additions I had previously made. Someone else must have. In hindsight, with the recent Seattle news stories already listed in the article, there is probably enough information for the reasonable mind to see that this is a destructive cult. I may just fine tune a bit to highlight the fact that although the title "Bishop" is used in the article, Francis Schuckardt has never requested nor recieved this office from the Catholic Church. I will do that within Wikipedia guidelines so please restrain yourself from editing facts that impact your obvious bias. Bernie Radecki 2/17/06

Bernie Radecki et al:

I edited some of your additions because they are inaccurate.

All the references about the stand of the TLRCC and Bishop Schuckardt against the "Catholic Church" are incorrect. Neither the TLRCC nor the Bishop ever opposed the popes nor the Catholic Church - they both oppose the "post-conciliar Catholic Church" and the people of that Church who proclaim themselves to be the pope. The materials you cited make that crystal clear and you spun them into portraying something they clearly do not say, which is why I found it necessary to correct them.

Regarding your statements about the TLRCC being is schism from the V2 Church; about Bishop Schuckardt's consecration being "an obvious act against the authority and jurisdiction of the Catholic Church"; and "Instead of only providing…" - these are not facts but rather opinions and/or judgments on your part and thus properly excluded.

I think you need to provide better proof for your claim that women were required to cover their heads while swimming. I have not yet had an opportunity to read the material you gave to support this claim, but sourcing Church policy to a publication produced by some teenage girls in untenable. Your footnote gave no details as to what made you draw the conclusion you made from this source - I think it needs further sourcing or needs to be edited out. Furthermore, the Church's ancient practice of women covering their heads in public goes to the issue of modesty regarding the opposite sex. Since the Church does not permit mixed swimming, there would be no logic to women being required to cover their heads while swimming - it just makes no sense. Fra. John 2/21/06.

WARNING TO THE READER ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

To the Wikipedia Reader: Be forewarned. Fra. John is the main writer of this article. He is a loyal follower of Francis Schuckardt and edits others input with incredible bias. He even defines the term "Catholic Church" differently. His years of blindness have resulted in his misconception of reality. He edits others documented inputs to fit his distorted, myopic views and considers his entries to be balanced. I tried to give readers some balance, but Fra. John's bias prevents him from seeing anything but what is in the prison of his mind. Look at what he wrote above. Let me assure the reader that Schuckardt was adamant that females had to keep the hair covered in public at all times: even when swimming. First I gave eyewitness accounts, but Fra. John edited them out. Then I cited a TLRCC high school publication from 1973 that showed female students swimming with veils (and of course long dresses). I know many of the students who are pictured in the article. I am sure they would corroborate the truth of my statements. But of course, Fra. John objects. Look at what he writes above and you can see that he believes women should have their head covered in public today based on an ancient practice long since in disuse. I will not fight his narrow mindedness. Since he has the ability to edit this article at will, the article cannot demonstrate the history of abuses that Francis Schuckardt has inflicted on unfortunate people over the last 40 years. Fra. John has made this Wikipedia article his own property. I leave it to him as a bauble to a child, but let the reader beware. Bernie Radecki 02/21/06

Bernie Radecki: Instead of arguing the merits you have chosen the childish tactic of name calling. On page one of this discussion page I identified myself so everyone one would know where I am coming from. I have also verified my editing by adding over 60 sources; when I started editing there was only two sources listed.

However, I think that any objective reader of your editing can clearly see that the very thing you are accusing me of is in fact what you are guilty of. Your apparent sole objective was not to make constructive additions to the article, but rather with single-minded focus to try to disparage Bishop Schuckardt, first with non-verifiable sources, and then by listing verifiable sources, but spining them into what you wanted them to say rather than what they actually did say. To try once again to make a rational argument: you state above that the Bishop was adamant about females keeping their heads covered at all times in public, including swimming. I challenge you to prove that the Bishop ever condoned females swimming in public in the first place. He of course did not, therefore your argument that he made them cover their heads while "in public at all times: even when swimming" is untenable.

Anyone and everyone can edit this article at will, it's not my exclusive domain. The editing and cleanup that I have done have been in compliance with Wikipedia policy; that policy of course does not support turning Wikipedia into a hate-page for disgruntled people. Fra. John 2/22/06

Fra John: I have to add that you believe you are doing is correct. But, for the sake of the readers you assert that Schuckardt made all the right moves. The fact is Schuckardt broke from the frame work of the church and in a sense started a new church. This is the fact beig argued. The world perceives it as such, thus the article needs to reflect it.

James Reyes is correct when he makes mention of Pope Paul VI. You refer to him as Paul IV but the world refers to him as POPE Paul VI. I think the article should be removed all together.

George Wagner 2006 February 21

George Wagner: I do defend many of Bishop Schuckardt's moves, but I don't defend them based upon my own opinion. That is why in the section of Answers to Accusations I sourced the answers to the teachings of the popes and of the Catholic Church prior to John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council. I believe what this article demonstrates is that much of what his accusers charge him with is in reality Catholic teaching, customs and traditions; not some novelty invented by the Bishop, as they would have the reader beleive.

As to your second point about the article needing to reflect that Bishop Schuckardt broke from the mainstream Catholic Church, I think it does.

Lastly, you are right, the world does refer to Montini as Pope Paul VI; I have no objections to any corrections made in that regard. Fra. John 2/22/06.

Fra John: I have one question, and I don't mean to be antagonistic with this. For the sake of all the readers and a few of us I am asking this question. With all the testimomy from CREDIBLE sources, how can you hide Schuckardt's homosexuality? I'm sure if asked these first hand witnessess would come forward. Again this is a valid question and I believe these accounts should be added.

George Wagner 2006 February 23

One last attemp to explain to Fra. John

Fra. John. I tried to walk away, but I will try one more time. Schuckardt forbade mixed swimming citing older customs. So of course females in the TLRCC did not swim with males! Now here comes the important part. He also mandated women cover their hair when out of the house (This is what I consider 'in public'). So when the TLRCC students of the TLRCC female-only high school went swimming in a remote location in north Idaho far away from anyone else, they still had to wear veils and long dresses. Yes while swimming and yes with only females present. This is a fact. There are pictures in the reference I cited. People in the pictures can give eye-witness testimony to this fact.

But all that is just the tip of the iceberg. The real travesty is that Schukardt chose among Catholic customs and practices from times past and mandated that they be practiced if a person wanted to remain in the TLRCC. So what was once optional, became mandatory based on his choice. You want to smoke, you are out. You want to have a mustache, you are out. Your hair is too long, you are out. It was even a rule that men had to wear white shirts in church. It was even a rule that men could not wear short sleeves in church. And of course men and women had to be on seperate sides of the church. How I wish you could see this big picture! Here is an example: In 1977, I wanted to go to college to study to be an electronic technician. I asked Schuckardt and got permission. (For the reader who wasn't in the TLRCC, members of the TLRCC had to ask permission to do many things.) I couldn't get into the 2 year Electronic Technician program at North Idaho College so I just took math and physics classes at North Idaho College. This was the fall quarter of 1977. After a few weeks, Denis Chicoine called me in for a meeting and told me Schuckardt had a migrane when I asked permission to go to the college. He informed me that Schuckardt would not let me attend the college because it was not a Catholic school. He told me I had committed a grave sin, needed to go to confession immediately, and of course I had to withdraw immediately from college. Here is the challenge for you: Can you see that, although there are Catholic teachings against attending a non-Catholic college, my dilemma was there were no colleges anywhere that the TLRCC considered Catholic. This is one of Schuckardt's major errors that likens him to the pharisees by stressing the letter of the law. What a heavy burden he placed on the memebers of the TLRCC!

If you can not see, at least on an intellectual level, that Schuckardt misapplied Catholic teaching in these two cases, then something other than ignorance is to blame. It is your inability to accept what is plainly evident to the reasonable mind that makes you unfit to edit my additions to this article. Bernie Radecki 2/24/06

It appears that Mr. Belzak (aka, Fra John) is severely challenged by my husband's intelligent statements. How typical - cowardly lion behavior - just ignore it... but it is not going to go away, Mr. Belzak. It is only fair to the Wikipedia reader that we, former victims of Francis Schuckardt's DESTRUCTIVE CULT, expose him for what he is and expose the evil he has done and continues to inflict on his brainwashed followers. God help you all! francie radecki 2/26/06

Reply to George Wagner

George Wagner:

Your question is a legitimate question and I'll try to answer it as best as I can.

Considering the many false accusations made against the Bishop, many of which have been refuted in this article, I cannot but help question the credibility of his accusers, some of whom clearly harbor ill will towards him. I remember reading the hand-written apology of one young man who falsely accused him - he wanted out of the Seminary and latched onto the rumor to serve this end. Even though he apologized and admitted he had lied, the damage was done - another rumor was out. Nevertheless, I cannot outright deny some of the accusations, because I wasn't there. While I have my doubts, you and some others clearly do not, so I will try to answer your question from your perspective.

The authority given to the Church by Christ is not contingent upon the personal sanctity or impeccability of the hierarchy exercising that authority. St. Peter sinned in publicly denying Christ three times, yet he remained the first Vicar of Christ. Church history bears witness to the sad fact that many popes, bishops, and other members of the Church’s hierarchy have publicly led very immoral lives; yet no one challenged their authority based on that alone. This is because the Church's clear teaching is that one does not lose his authority upon the commission of personal sin, but rather by schism, heresy, apostasy, or by removal from office by someone of even higher authority. If it were otherwise, the Catholic Church would have ceased to exist centuries ago. Therefore Bishop Schuckardt’s authority and role as a Bishop of the Church would not be affected even if the accusations were true. This is why those of us who continue to acknowledge him have never given much weight to the accusations, because even if they are true, it is a matter of personal sin, not of public debate. Furthermore, to take it into the public arena would be to commit a grievous sin of detraction; anyone committing such a sin and dying unrepentant of it, would go to Hell for all eternity. This is not my opinion, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Lastly, what if the Bishop did commit the sins he is being accused of and has since gone to Confession, performed the requisite penance and received absolution. He would then have received forgiveness from God. If God's justice has thus been satisfied, who are these Pharisaical accusers who refuse to forgive (as if they were ever entitled to it in the first place)? I sometimes wonder if they really even believe in God, or have ever prayed the Our Father: “forgive us our trespasses, AS we forgive those who trespass against us.” It would be well for them to listen to the words of Cassian, a Father of the Church: "Whoever then does not from his heart forgive his brother who has offended him, by this prayer [the Our Father] calls down upon himself not forgiveness but condemnation, and by his own profession asks that he himself may be judged more severely, saying: Forgive me as I also have forgiven. And if he is repaid according to his own request, what else will follow but that he will be punished after his own example with implacable wrath and a sentence that cannot be remitted?"

Are these accusers so spotless that they will not need God’s mercy on their judgment day? Are they so holy and sinless that they can shrug off the words of Jesus Christ Himself: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and continue to brashly throw stones and sit in judgment? Sad to say, they apparently seem to think so. Fra. John 2/27/06

Reply to Redeckis

Read the reply above to George Wagner, it certainly applies to you.

I'm not going to continually debate you regarding all of the above. Again, Wikipedia is not a hate-page for disgruntled people. But I will make a few comments.

You have yet to fill in the gap of women swimming with head covering as being a requirement which came from Bishop Schuckardt. You referencing a picture of some girls swimming with covered heads does not prove that it was mandated or that it came from the Bishop. Why is that so difficult for you to see? If I have a picture of you running a red light, it does not mean that your employer mandated that you run red lights. Filling in voids with your presumptions is not evidence, it is merely your presumptions.

Regarding your "tip of the iceberg" paragraph above, you are simply demonstrating your ignorance of the role of a Catholic Bishop. Bishops are appointed with the task of making moral judgments and of enacting laws regarding the same. Lay people are not. It is a prideful man who ignores the fact that God established a Church to be governed by a hierarchy and then thinks his own moral judgment as a layman is equal to that of the hierarchy. You are neither qualified to make moral judgments regarding any Bishop's diocese nor are you established to pass judgment on them. The Catholic Church has never been a democracy and it never will be.

God gave you a free will and you could have always walk if you didn't like things. But you should bury your intolerence towards those who disagree with your opinions because you are coming across as a bigot. There are many people in the world who disagree with your religion and philosophy, including me, but who don't engage in name calling. It is non-producive and contrary to basic human decency let alone Catholic principles. Fra. John. 2/27/06

Mr. Belzak, First of all, we are NOT disgruntled people. Now, regarding this whole business about women having to have their heads covered in public at all times, and even high school girls SWIMMING in full uniform, including head coverings - well, guess what? I was there. I was one of them. I can vouch for the authenticity of this requirement. You know that I could go on & on ----- but I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and it is a wonderful life! francie rAdecki - you spelled our name wrong - 2/27/06

To Everyone

19:18, Monday February 27, 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the Main Page only. See below for information on where to post on topics other than the Main Page. Irrelevant discussion may be removed.

To Fra John: You wrote: "It is a prideful man who ignores the fact that God established a Church to be governed by a hierarchy and then thinks his own moral judgment as a layman is equal to that of the hierarchy." Apply that to Francis Schuckardt when he had himself consecrated and set himself up as the supreme authority to interpret Catholicism! But remember, my argument with you is that you edit out others input of information that they know first hand. You also edit out their additions that are supported by documentation. I have not removed your additions. I will admit my first addition was not well done. My subsequent additions were well done and should not be edited by you. I don't care to argue details of religion. Bernie Radecki 02/27/2006

It is Wikipedia, not Hatepedia

Radeckis:

The misspelling of your name was not intentional.

I wish the two of you would read and follow Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Someone's personal experience is not a verifiable source - anyone can make a claim of personal experience about anything, so it is of no source value. Also, just because some addition has documention supporting it, it does not necessarily mean it is appropriate. Again, please review policy guidelines.

I have tolerated a lot of personal attacks thus far, but I am going to start editing them out per Wiki policy. Wiki policy states that personal attacks are not to be made and gives some examples of them: "Negative personal comments... Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult... Threats of legal action..."

The TLRCC is not a cult, but I included the above quote to show that even from your perspective the comments are not appropriate.

Let us be civil and made constructive additions. The discussion page was designed for constructive debate regarding the article, it was not designed to be a page for assassinating another's character. Fra. John 2/28/06

Reason for minor edit to article and comment on editing this discussion page without in place notation

I edited out, in the sentance regarding Denis Chicoine's death, the footnote refering to all going to hell who are excommunicated from the Catholic Church at the time of death. Since it is a minority view that Shuckardt is a bishop of the Catholic Church and that his excommunications carry weight, the footnote purporting Denis Chicoine is in hell for eternity is both inappropriate, melodramatic, and hateful. Also, when you edit another's work on the discussion page, at least have the decency to make an entry on the discussion page that you have edited it. Imagine how you would feel if I edited your discussions but didn't show that I had edited it! Another reader wouldn't know that it was no longer your writing. Imagine the chaos! Bernie Radecki 3/1/2006

Bernie Radecki: The majority of people may not have considered Bishop Schuckardt a member of the Catholic Church, but Chicoine did, and that makes the fact of his excommunication relevant to this article. The footnote that you extracted is the teaching of the Catholic Church as Chiocine himself accepted it. Both of these have historical and contextual relevance and are thus properly included in the article. Furthermore, it is an verifiable objective fact that Bishop Schuckardt issued a formal and declaratory excommunication against Chicoine, it is subjective as to whether or not the excommunication carried any weight and not verifiable. I am reinserting them because they were improperly extracted.

Regarding editing some of your input on this discussion page: I posted the Wiki policy "Irrelevant discussion may be removed" on 2/27/06; I wrote you on 2/28/06 that I was going to start editing out personal attacks and I explained and posted Wiki guidelines regarding the same. After removing only the portions of them that were in violation of Wiki policy, I recorded the extraction in the "edit summary," so I really don't know what you are talking about. Fra. John 3/2/06

Fra John: Even if you considered it a personal attack, it is recommended by Wikipedia that you show your deletion with braces otherwise chaos can reign. Wikipedia also cautions those involved in the disagreement from being involved in the deletion.

Posting of neutrality warning

On another issue, you have again added back that Chicoine died in a state of excommunication and that persons in this state go to hell. The article previously deals with Chicoine's excommunication and I agree that it is relevent in this article. However, I do not see how Chicoine's death is relevent. Additionally, to add a footnote intimating that he is in hell does not represent a neutral point of view but rather a vengeful point of view. I encourage you to remove either the whole reference to his death or at least the footote intimating his eternal condemnation to hellfire. This would only be fair. Until this issue is resolved, the neutrality warning must remain on this article. Bernie Radecki 3/3/06

Bernie Radecki: I'll reasearch the braces issue regarding deletions; I have not been using them because I was unaware that they were recommended. While on this issue, it is more than just what "I consider" to be a personal attack, it clearly falls within the definition of personal attacks according to Wiki guidelines. I am not saying this to be antagonistic - but from my perspective it seems hypocritical to have someone wrongfully insert personal attacks and then object as to how they are removed. They should have never been inserted in the first place.

Regarding Chicoine's excommunication: the two statements I listed (his excommunication and the Church's penalties for excommunicates) are neutral points of view and can only be considered vengeful if one chooses to draw that conclusion from them. It is a neutral and verifiable fact that the Bishop excommunicated him; it is a neutral and verifiable fact what the Church's penalties are regarding excommunicates. Any objective person can discover both of these facts for themselves with a minor amount of research, there is no spinning them. The whole idea with these articles is to put forth the facts; the reader should be free to draw their own conclusions, not your or my conclusion. Let's give the reader that opportunity.

I have long been tempted to post that neutrality warning myself, but I want to give it some thought first before and if I want to challenge it. Fra. John 3/4/06

Third attempt to have Denis Chicoine's condemnation to hell removed

Fra. John: Since the Catholic Church has never acknowledged Francis Schuckardt's consecration, there is a question of whether he is a bishop of the Catholic Church and thus whether he has the authority to excommunicate someone from the Catholic Church. Please write whether you can agree to that statement. I suggest waiting for the Catholic Church to clear up this issue before we conclude that Denis Chicoine suffers in eternal hellfire for his actions in overthrowing Francis Schuckardt. The situation that led to Chicoine ousting Schuckardt has many extenuating factors that bear considering by a duly authorized panel from the Catholic Church. Until then, I ask you to show some consideration and remove the footnote that links Chicoine's lack of being absolved from Schuckardt's excommunication and his being condemned to hellfire. Without the removal of this footnote, I feel compelled to seek assistance from Wikipedia on this article. I do not want to do that because there is some useful information in this article. (A thought just struck me: If you feel that Schuckardt was justified in being consecrated a bishop, then you must think that Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, and Pope John Paul II were heretics. Since these men are dead, you must think they are in hell since there is no record of them recanting the "errors of Vatican Council II". You do not state in the article that they are in the eternal flames of hell. Why do you single out Denis Chicoine? It appears to be a vindictive personal attack.) Bernie Radecki 3/4/06

Bernie Radecki:

I think the trouble lies in that you are not distinguishing the facts from your own personal conclusions regarding them.

There appears to be two facts from which you draw your conclusion: 1) Bishop Schuckardt excommunicated Denis Chicoine, 2) the Church's penalties inflicted upon excommunicates.

Nowhere in the article does it state that Chicoine is in Hell or is believed to be in Hell, that is YOUR CONCLUSION. Wiki articles are to present facts; the reader is free to draw their own conclusions. Facts are facts; these are proper to the article because of their historical context and of their relevance. It would go against good editing and Wiki policy to exclude relevant facts because it may offend someone who has taken a side on the issue. Put the shoe on the other foot - this article is loaded with negatives against Bishop Schuckardt which can lead one to draw negative conclusions regarding him. I have not, however, removed them if they are relevant and verifiable, because that would be partisan, not neutral.

Regarding some of your other concerns: Neither Bishop Schuckardt nor Denis Chicoine belonged to what they called the "post-Vatican II Catholic Church." Therefore, whether or not this Church ever makes any pronouncement on this topic (or any other) is of no concern to them. If the Eastern Orthodox made a pronouncement against them, or Islam, or the Mormons... it is of no concern. Why? Because they are not Churches to which either Bishop Schuckardt or Denis Chicoine belonged, just as neither one of them belonged to the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. It seems to me you are confused because both Bishop Schuckardt believes & Denis Chicoine believed that they are/were Catholics, whereas they both believe/believed that the post-Vatican II Church is not Catholic. The article explains all of this.

You state that the Catholic Church (post-Vatican II) has never acknowledged Francis Schuckardt's consecration: that is incorrect. They refuse to acknowledge him as a member of their Church, but they have acknowledged the validity of his orders. But again: it is of no concern to Bishop Schuckardt now and it was never a concern to Denis Chicoine.

The TLRCC does indeed consider Paul VI... to be heretics, but we have never stated that they are in Hell, just as we have never stated that Chicoine is in Hell, because outside of Judas Iscariot, we cannot determine conclusively if anyone is in Hell.

Here is an olive branch: Church law states that any valid priest can remove any penalty of excommunication from any penitent who is in danger of death. I will include this law in the footnote when I have the opportunity to look it up so as to be able to quote the exact canon. This law is one of several reasons why neither I nor the article ever stated that Chicoine is in Hell: how do I know that he did not confess his deeds which led to his excommunication to a valid priest before he died? I don't know. I hope and pray that he did. I don't hate Chicoine, he was a friend of mine at one time.

Lastly, you are incorrect about Wiki suggesting to put removed personal attacks in brackets. Wiki simply advocates the use of brackets in the fashion that is common to all editors - when you are quoting someone, anything added extraneous to that quote by the editor should be placed in brackets. I am going to remove some more personal attacks from this page per policy. Fra. John 3/6/06

Reply to Fra. John's insistence on keeping the footnote regarding excommunicaiotn and hell in place

To Fra. John: The article now reads: "Chicoine died on August 10, 1995; his excommunication by Francis Schuckardt had never been revoked." The footnote reads: "The Catholic Church teaches that any person who dies in the state of excommunication goes to Hell." The implication is that Chicoine died in the state of excommunication and is therefore in Hell. You are putting two facts together that are not in context. It is as though I wrote: "George Bush has gray hair. A gray-haired man was seen robbing a convenience store." By putting these two facts together, you imply there is a relation. I accept that you do not see that, but it is unacceptable to me to have such a mean-spirited implication included in this article so I will start the arbitration process when I have more time to devote to it.

On another topic: You wrote yesterday that the Catholic Church has "acknowledged the validity of Francis Schuckardt's orders". Please support that claim with the documentation from the Catholic Church in your next post. I assume it is a statement from the current hierarchy of the Catholic Church specifically about Francis Schuckardt.

Lastly, regarding your statement about me being wrong about the use of backets in removing information, below is information directly from the Wikipedia site titles "Wikipedia: Remove Personal Attacks": "Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content. While simple insults or personal comments can often (but not always) simply be removed, partly factual comments can often be edited to preserve the constructive content, placing the new text in [square brackets]."

Additionally, there are these warnings: The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly."

"Getting into bickering matches about whether a specific comment was a personal attack is rarely productive; in such cases it's best to let the disputed comment stand, allowing other editors to judge for themselves."

"It's important to make sure people can tell that comments have been removed; that the words you leave behind are not the original words of the previous poster. One way to do this is to put the new text in [square brackets], as is done in newspaper articles, books etc. when text is not directly quoted."

For the record, I do not consider eye-witness accounts of events related to the church that Schuckardt presides over are "personal attacks". I do agree that when I write things about you such as "You are trapped within the prison of your distorted mind" to be a personal attack. So although it would be OK with me if you edit out mean spirited things that I wrote about you, I do not agree that you should edit out my or others accounts of things that occurred in Schuckardt's church. Especially now that this whole article is going to go to arbitration, it appears to me to be a bad time for you to edit the talk page. Bernie Radecki 3/06/06

[Removed personal attacks] Cultfree aka Julie Czapla 3/7/2006

To Julie Czapla: I can tell by the tone of your post that you were personally and deeply affected by Francis Schuckardt. Fra. John, AKA Joe Belzak, has been removing text that he believes falls under the "personal attack" clause of Wikipedia. There are some agreed on standards, such as refraining from using incendiary language or adding material that does not add new information, that Wikipedia promotes. I have made some statements regarding Fra. John's intelligence that I now regret and I agree that they should be removed. He has been removing additions both in the article and in the discussion page from individuals that relate first hand information of life under Francis Schuckardt. I disagree with him that these consititue a "personal attack" on Francis Schuckardt. Rather I see them as being, especially on the discussion page, valid entries that support information contained in the article. This and the portrayal of Schuckardt's excommunication of Denis Chicoine carrying the authoriity of the Catholic Church are two areas that I am going to appeal for mediation from Wikipedia once I finish finals. Fra. John is adamant that he is following the proper guidelines and I, and perhaps others, am adamant that he is not. As an aside, I did edit out your choice of words regarding Schuckardt. I hope that Fra. John notices so that he can learn to selectively edit out objectional material both without removing whole sections and also so that the reader can tell changes were made. Bernie Radecki 3/7/06

Discussion Page not a Back Door for Non-verifiable Statements or a Forum for Personal Attacks

Bernie Radecki: Your analogy about "George Bush has gray hair. A gray-haired man was seen robbing a convenience store" is not applicable to the factual situation here. The first is an attributable fact, the second is not. The fact of Chicoine's excommunication and the fact of the Church's corresponding penalties are both attributable fact. You say that "by putting these two facts together, you imply there is a relation." Exactly! - there is a relation, which is why both facts are relevant to the article. The verifiable facts should remain and you should allow the reader to connect their own dots and draw their own conclusions. Wiki is not an op-ed, it is an encyclopedia.

Regarding the modern Catholic Church acknowledging the validity of Bishop Schuckardt's orders - read the article. It shows that they acknowledge the validity of orders of the Old Roman Catholic Church. There have also been personal statements to the same, but I don't have them readily available.

I believe any objectively-minded person who reviews the non-constructive attacks and non-verifiable "personal experiences" that have been removed from these discussion pages, will agree that they were properly removed and removed in conformity to Wiki standards. The discussion page was not set up to be a back door to get around verifiable facts and I will continue to remove them when that is their obvious objective. If you or others want to make personal attacks, you'll need to find a different forum to do it in. Fra. John 3/9/06

To Julie Czapla: I removed your "unbelievable fiction" section because it does not follow Wiki policy. If you read this discussion page and access the history section of this page, you will see that it was not done in secrecy. I am also removing your latest attack for the same reason. Please take the time to read policy requirements and keep your input to constructive and verifiable facts. The discussion page was designed to work out conflicting ideas regarding the article in question, not to aire your personal feelings or to personally criticize editors. Fra. John 3/9/06

To Fra. John: When you dispute verifiable first hand eyewitness accounts of history aren't you really closing your mind to the truth? Without going into a mud slinging war, I was also present [deletion] You can't change what you don't acknowledge. Some good things came out of "the community" - I don't deny this and many of the leaders were simply well-intentioned [deletion]. Looking back, its hard to believe that many of the religious who were making these decisions were just kids themselves. [deletion]. Steve Lavagnino 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Steve Lavagnino 3/10/06

• Steve Lavagnino: There is good reason why neither Wiki nor any other reputable media outlet accepts claimed personal experiences..., they cannot be verified. I personally have a whole bag of them, but I have refrained from using them for this and other reasons. Wiki policy states that “Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article.” It does not allow for personal attacks, venting, one’s opinions…. I have therefore removed the bulk of your paragraph because it is not in keeping with this sound and good policy. Fra. John 3/11/06

• To Steve Lavignino: As you can see from previous discussion, there is currently a difference of opinion on whether eye-witness accounts that validate material either contained in the article (or placed in the article and then removed by Fra. John) have a place on the discussion board. This is why there is a warning on the article. Fra. John sees first hand accounts as "personal attacks". I see them as adding validity to statements present in the article. I found your addition to be well stated and free of incendiary language although there is nothing in the article about Schuckardt supporting Nazism. (I must admit, my first addition had more emotion in it than is acceptable for an encyclopedia.) If you have time, I would welcome you to investigate the many areas such as newspapers, magazines, television productions, court cases, statements from priests or bishops or organizations affiliated with the Catholic Church, and cult experts that have covered Francis Schukardt in order to gain corraboration of the statements that you made. If you are like me, you are less interested in discussing the validity of Schuckardt's claim to represent the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and more interested in whether his activities over the last 20 some years represent a destructive cult. Soon I will have a little more time to petition for a third party to mediate both some of the content in the article page and also Fra. John's interpretation of Wikipedia's statement on personal attacks and editing other's input. Bernie Radecki 3/11/2006

TO BERNIE RADECKI: I had a conversation with a lady who was part of the "group" and lived with the sisters in Seattle. I will add information when I am able to compile it. I also have found evidence in the article that Fra. John is guilty of bias writing toward Schuckardt and against Schuckardt. I will write all of this in a day or so. George Wagner 2006 03 13

To George Wagner: Wikipedia's guidelines on original research state that articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. Unless the topic of the information she gave you has been published, I don't think it should added. Bernie Radecki March 15, 2006

Removal of Disputed Neutrality Label

Bernie Radecki: I’ve removed the neutrality disputed warning label because I don’t believe you have made a case for removing the statements regarding Chicoine’s excommunication and the Church’s penalties regarding excommunicates. Both statements are verifiably factual and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise. Since they are facts that do not lend themselves to various points of view, you cannot put forth the argument that they lack neutrality. I've tried to be open minded in regard to your arguments for deleting these facts, but I believe that removing them would not serve a NPOV position, but rather your personal bias. I did, however, add the exception I mentioned to you above (Canon 2252 - absolution in danger of death) in an effort to be as neutral as possible. Furthermore, you should not post a warning label and then go on siesta. If time constraints prevent you from defending your posting, then you ought to wait until you do have the necessary time and then post it. Fra. John 3/14/04

Fra John: I did look into a request for mediation for this page, but currently Wikipedia is backlogged on requests. I do not know how to procede on this dispute which centers on whether Schuckardt's excommunication carried the authority of the Catholic Church and therefore the condemnaton to hell that the Catholic Church attributes to one excommunicated. Since this dispute cannot be taken to a neutral mediator, I have followed the Wikipedia recommendation and labelled the article with the POV-Check template. I believe you will approve of that. I don't think Wikipedia's dispute process is going to help. Bernie Radecki 3/15/06 [This paragraph was reinserted by Fra. John to help clarify the focal point of the dispute over neutrality]

Bernie Radecki:

I'll try to explain the excommunication thing again for the forth time, but I'm starting to wonder if the reason you don't get it is because your obvious bias is causing a mental block - you don't want to accept these facts and therefore you don't accept them. I'm not making this observation to demean you, but perhaps you can take an objective look into yourself to see if this isn't really the case.

So here goes again.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

• "A Fact is any of the following: Something actual as opposed to invented; something concrete used as a basis for further interpretation; information about a particular subject; something known to be the case; something in the world that makes a true statement true."
• "An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts toward something. It is an assessment, judgment, or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are not falsifiable."

In applying these two definitions to Chicoine's excommunication and the Church's penalties for excommunicates, I don't see how any reasonable mind can reach a conclusion other than that they are both facts. That Bishop Schuckardt excommunicated Chicione is a fact. The Church's penalties regarding excommunicates are a fact. Period. Whether Bishop "Schuckardt's excommunication carried the authority of the Catholic Church …" is not a fact, it is an opinion. It is "an assessment, judgment, or evaluation of something," the something being in this case the excommunication and the penalty. The very fact that you and I disagree as to whether or not Bishop Schuckardt had the "authority" to excommunicate Chicoine simply proves that we arrived at a different judgment regarding the same facts, it does not prove that the facts are not neutral. This is the purpose of encyclopedias - to present facts, not one's judgments or conclusions based on them.

Fra. John 3/15/06

FRA JOHN: The fact about Schuckardt's excommunication is this: He is outside the Majisterium of the Catholic Church therefore his power to excommunicate is illicit. He may have valid schismatic orders, but he is outside of the church. To prove this, ask how many catholic bishops and clergy (not to mention the pope) will recognize Schuckardt as a catholic in good standing? I realize your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact. The traditional movement as a whole is not recognized by the billions of catholics and the pope so it is merely opinion. Otherwise you should still be calling Pope Paul VI, Paul VI.

After further review I am going to add a new section to the article based on the Seattle Times articles and media reports. This section is going to contain the current events with the group including the secrecy of all its members. It will conform to Wiki Policy.

There is an issue in the "Exile" section. Encyclopedia articles are written in the third person, you refer to yourself in the first person making it sound extremely bias. It is regards to Fr. Louis Kerfoot. Please fix it.

You removed websites to CMRI.org and Traditional Catholic.org, but you have a link to your website right before Helen Chaska. Again I see extreme bias. Please inform me as to why.

One more issue, you need to refer to all post-concilliar popes as popes. I fixed one that I saw, but there might be more. I also noticed that you refer throughout the whole article to Fr. Denis Chicione and Fr. Louis Kerfoot as though they are lay men. Regardless of your view, they need to be refered to as priests just as Schuckardt is refered to as a Bishop. George Wagner 2006 MAR 15

George Wagner:

Bishop Schuckardt is indeed outside of the magisterium of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. No one is debating that. And without going into the argument about whether or not the post-Vatican II Church is any longer truly Catholic and therefore lacking in jurisdiction (and other things), it is ALL irrelevant to the issue at hand. Chicoine believed that Bishop Schuckardt was a true Catholic Bishop and went to Bishop Schuckardt for all of his Orders and ecclesiastical offices. Chicoine believed in all the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, (including the Canon Law cited in the footnote regarding penalties imposed upon excommunicates) and he believed that Bishop Schuckardt had all of powers of the Episcopate, including the power to excommunicate. This makes it all relevant to this article.

To argue that because Bishop Schuckardt is not a member of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church and therefore lacks the authority to excommunicate is tantamount to proclaiming the same to ALL other religions throughout the world. The post-Vatican II church doesn’t hold the exclusive right of excommunicating it’s members. Many, if not all religions, excommunicate THEIR members and don’t give a fig about what the post-VII Church or any other church has to say about it. Bishop Schuckardt did not excommunicate Chicoine from the post-Vatican II Church; he excommunicated him from the Catholic Church of the Tridentine Catholic Rite, of which Chicoine was a member.

I will probably oppose and challenge a new section based on the patently incorrect Times story for a variety of reasons. Firstly, much of the content of that article is already contained in this article and inserting more of it would further bloat an already large article. Secondly, there is already a link from this article to the Times’ story and the reader can read it in IT’S ENTIRETY. This would be a more balanced approach than having someone of your obvious ill will cherry picking certain portions of it. Thirdly, and most importantly, I object to what you, Bernie Radecki, and some others are constantly trying to do to this article. Anyone who would bother to read what you, Bernie Radecki and some others have stated on this Talk Page (especially before the recent extractions) would have to reach the inescapable conclusion that you have a single purpose in contributing to this article: you want to damage Bishop Schuckardt and the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church. You actively solicit one another for anything that would serve this purpose without an apparent interest in any other facts. You are clearly driven by ill will and really should voluntarily withdraw from contributing to this article, at least until you can cool down a bit.

I don’t refer to myself at all in this section. The “I” you are referring to is Detective Cloud and he is talking in the first person because it is a direct quote. The only bias here is the bias you read into it. Another example of how your ill will distorts facts.

You are right in that it should not be there. I removed it. F.Y.I. - I did not put it there and furthermore, it is not our current cite, but one that has been in disuse for a couple of years now.

Did I miss something? Didn’t Louis Kerfoot quit the clergy? If he does not refer to himself as a priest, why should we?

When I first started editing this article, I was using the term “Reverend” before Chicoine’s name; but as I was unable to get reciprocal treatment for the Bishop from the other editors. It seemed detrimental to the Bishop’s case to use Rev. in regard to Chicoine and just Schuckardt in regard to the Bishop. I use “Bishop Schuckardt” whenever I write about him, but in an effort to keep the peace as much as possible, I have not edited the others who choose simply to refer to him as Schuckardt. It is not fair to demand that they believe he is a bishop anymore than it is fair to demand that they believe Chicoine is a priest. Again, it is an encyclopedia and we must make ever effort at impartiality. Fra. John 3/17/06

To Fra. John:

• I appreciate your elucidating your point of view regarding Chicoine's excommunication. You state: "Bishop Schuckardt did not excommunicate Chicoine from the post-Vatican II Church; he excommunicated him from the Catholic Church of the Tridentine Catholic Rite, of which Chicoine was a member." That is verifiable in print and I accept it. However, Chicoine died as a member of the Latin Rite Catholic Church. At his death, he was not excommunicated from that church. In fact, his body lies in the consecrated ground of the cementary at Mt. St. Michaels in Spokane Washington. It is obvious the church he belongs to holds him in high regard. So both you and I agree that the Catholic Church didn't excommunicate Chicoine and that the Latin Rite Catholic Church (that was formed after Schuckardt's removal and in which Chicoine died) didn't consider him excommunicated. Your argument seems to center on what Chicoine believed. There is no reliable source that states that Chicoine felt a need, even as death neared, to be absolved from Schuckardt's excommunication. I am sure I can find documentation contesting to the fact that he did indeed received last right from a priest of the Latin Rite Catholic Church if that would make a difference to you. Perhaps we can clear up this issue. It seems to me we are making progress.

• I don't think Wikipedia allows you to remove other's entries based on whether you personally question the veracity of the Seattle Times' article on your group. You can read in Wikiopedia's guidelines that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability provided by published, reliable sources, not truth. If there is published materials that support your opinion, you can use it to balance the article. This is just my opinion based on what I have read in Wikipedia's guidelines. I am hoping that the mediation will help clear up these points. Perhaps you can take a look at and reply to what I wrote on March 16 (see below) regarding your reinsertion of the material regarding Schuckardt's formulation of his view of sedevacantism. Bernie Radecki 23:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal or original research regarding Schuckardt's argument on Sedevacantism

Fra John: In keeping with Wikipedia's policy of no original research, I have removed the rather lengthy section that demonstrates Schuckardt's reasoning for believing Pope Paul VI to be a heretic. Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. I have bracketed the words "Papal Infallibility" and "Sedvacantism" so that the interested reader can go to those Wikipedia pages for an indepth look at those topics I think you will agree that the article is getting too long and by removing material that is covered elsewhere, it will aid readability. There may be other sections that may benefit as well. Bernie Radecki 3/14/06

Bernie Radecki:

I've reinserted the section you removed that explains why and how Bishop Schuckardt came to the conclusion that the post-Vatican Council II popes could not be true popes. I did so because it does not fall under original research, but under the Wiki's overriding policy of NPOV under the subtitle of Religion: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape." Also under heading of Controversy, it states: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views…"

You state above that the article is getting too long, so you removed something you didn't like and then in the same breath you added something to it that was to your liking. A flagrant example of practicing a double standard. All relevant information should remain, whether anyone likes it or not. Fra. John 3/15/06

Fra. John, (I assume you are also Athanasius303):

Instead of adding Schuckardt's reasoning on Sedevacantism to this page, why not deal with it on the Sedevacantism article? Perhaps Schuckardt has had his views published in a reliable source over the 35 years that he has held this view. You could cite the source and people could read it there. Sedevacantism is an minority view that is adequately dealt with elsewhere. (Look at the Wikipedia Sedevacantism article) Remember, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If there is a reputable source that has published Schuckardt's original research, cite it and move on; but don't write out Schuckardt's reasoning in this article. Remeber, there are 3 primary policies: NPOV, No Orginal research, and verifiability in a reliable source. They all should be balanced. Bernie Radecki 02:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

George Wagner: You continually edit out from the “Exile” section my addition of “the Aryan Nations.” The fact that Chicoine’s brigade was involved with the Aryan Nations is a very significant fact and I see no legitimate reason for you to continually extract it without even so much as a comment as to your justification for doing so. Who’s bias here? Fra. John 3/17/06

Request for mediation from the Wikipedia Mediation Cabal.

Currently Wikipedia is backlogged on requests fro dispute mediation. I have requested assistance from the Mediation Cabal. They estimate 2-20 days before they can assist with the disagreement on whether Schuckardt's excommunication carried the authority of the Catholic Church and therefore the condemnaton to hell that the Catholic Church attributes to one excommunicated. I have followed the Wikipedia recommendation and labelled the article with the POV-Check template. I believe you will approve of that. I beleive the Cabal process will revert the article back to today's date if and when they make a recommendation. For this reason, it may be wise not to make changes at this time. Bernie Radecki 19:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki:

I don't approve of the latest POV dispute label you've posted. I understand that it is a compromise and I appreciate the fact that you were willing to give a little, thank you, but that does not change the fact that it is posted in error. You make the charge of disputed neutrality, therefore the burden is on you to demonstrate it. I don't think you have demonstrated it and therefore it would be injurious to the article to retain the label. I'm removing it until you can make your case. Fra. John 3/15/06

P.S. - I removed the label before I read your latest posting.

Fra. John:

I just reverted your change. I should have read the discussion board first. I did not recognize you as Athanasius303 so I thought I was dealing with a newbie. Anyway, you and I are unable to reach an agreement. You don't own the article and neither do I. We have a difference in opinion that we have discussed but cannot resolve. For that reason, I have requested third party mediation. The template just attests to the fact that the article is in for a POV check. It is the most innocuous template available. I do believe I am following Wikipedia policy. I have spent some time reading various policy and guideline tutorials. I feel I have learned a lot. Let us not have a revert war over the label! Let us give the process a chance and we might both learn something. Bernie Radecki 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki:

Fair enough. Fra. John 3/15/06

P.S. - I reverted to my earlier change, but retained the notice. This is because you had the footnotes misaligned and it is inherently unfair to edit out someone's work and they post a mediation notice accompanied by a request for no more changes. I will cease as of now to edit (unless someone else steps into the fray) and ask you to do the same. I look forward to an impartial mediatior.

To Fra. John (AKA Athanasius303)

Fair enough. Bernie Radecki 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to the request for mediation from the Wikipedia:Cabl

Mediation Cabal link to the request for mediation page for this article. Bernie Radecki 18:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

George Wagner: You continually edit out from the “Exile” section my addition of “the Aryan Nations.” The fact that Chicoine’s brigade was involved with the Aryan Nations is a very significant fact and I see no legitimate reason for you to continually extract it without even so much as a comment as to your justification for doing so. Who’s bias here? Fra. John 3/17/06

fra John: I will write a lengthy reply to your above statements. In regards to "Exile", you assume because Butler's cronies were at MSM when these activities took place that they were welcomed with open arms. So, you tie these two points together and make an illogical conclusion that they were tied in with Aryan Nations. Either you should go to an accredited college and take logic, or you should refrain from your severly bias implications. My reason for removing it is this: It is irrelevant and contains unjust bias. Pretty simple, huh. George Wagner 3/17/06

George Wagner:

I don’t know if the Aryan Nations group was welcomed at Mt. St. Michael’s with open arms or not, but the detective stated under oath that Louis Kerfoot admitted, in an evasive manner, that they had been there on more than one occasion. If they were not welcomed, then why did they visit more than once and why were they allowed to observe Chicoine'’ brigade performing drills? So to answer your question; yes, I do believe they were welcome and I think any reasonable person would draw the same conclusion. But that’s neither here nor there. One of the reasons it was included in this article is because some earlier editor stated that the Bishop “fled” Spokane and left it open-ended as to why he fled. Tying in the reason why some of his assistants persuaded him to leave and showing that their concerns were very legitimate, at least to some degree, answers the former unanswered question. Thus it is relevant. Fra. John 3/18/06

Father Denis Chicoine was conditionally re-ordained by Bishop Musey because he wasn't sure his ordination by Schuckardt was valid. That bit of truth needs to be added to the article. So Chicoine didn't believe Schuckardt had the power to excommunicate him. Bottom line Schuckardt had no authority to excommunicate anyone. Frater John/Athanasius - your article says Schuckardt was automatically excommunicated when he was consecrated by Bishop Brown. With your own reasoning shouldn't there be a footnote there that says if someone who dies excommunicated goes to hell? By the way I'm not a member of either church. Reading these entries it appears fra John is strongly biased in favor of Schuckardt. While some of the information is interesting, the entire article needs to be more objective. I am not a wikipedia expert but how can publications be more valuable than firsthand knowledge? Just because something is published doesn't make it true. I would like to know where the information about an alleged tie between the Konrad's Brigade and the Aryan Nations is published. I find it interesting that I'd never heard that before. Is this first-hand knowledge and if so, then why is it allowed when other firsthand knowledge is deniedl. (3/17/06 Laurie Pipan)

Welcome to the exchange. It was my addition that Brown's consecration of Schuckardt resulted in his excommuncation, but I think your point is well taken. This article is now awaiting mediation. I believe it can be improved. If you care to participate in the effort, please do. Just read a bit of the Wikipedia guidelines first so you don't make the mistakes I did when I first started! For instance, since truth is elusive, Wikipedia is based on verifiability of added material based on a published, reputable source - not first hand knowledge. I have learned that. Bernie Radecki 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Laurie Pipan:

The article shows that Musey did not himself doubt the validity of Chicoine’s ordination, but because “some” had doubts he conditionally re-ordained them. This information was taken directly from a letter Musey himself published. If Chicoine had doubts and the doubts are somehow contained in a verifiable source, then they certainly could be added to the article.

I’ve already answered some of the issues you address above and rather than repeat them here, I would suggest looking them up instead.

Bishop Schuckardt was not excommunicated when he received consecration. But rather than going into a lengthy debate over it, I’ll narrow the focus to the article at hand. The excommunication of Chicoine that the article refers to is not the automatic excommunication he incurred, but rather the formal declaratory excommunication pronounced against him. That document has been accepted in our courts of law and is still there for anyone to review. That makes it a verifiable fact and proper material for this article. An automatic excommunication is not a verifiable fact and not proper to this article, which is why the article says nothing about Chicoine’s automatic excommunication.

If you read the article carefully you will notice that the information about the Aryan Nations being at Mt. St. Michael’s comes from the sworn testimony of a Sheriff’s Detective in open court. It is part of the court record and that makes it both public and verifiable. Fra. John 3/18/06

To All Interested Participants: Perhaps you should be advised that the public-at-large views your arcane exchanges with a measure of involuntary interest AND disgust. If the prevailing concern is the salvation of immortal souls, do you feel that your time is well spent? As a people, we yearn for the leadership of those who will lead us to the Harbor of Eternal Rest. Inasmuch as any of you gentleman (or ladies) have that at heart, do you feel that your grandstanding is effective to that end? Bishop Francis Schukardt--controversial as he may be--drew people to the consideration of their eternity. Father Denis Chicoine--controversial as he may be--did the same for many years. As articulate as the parties to this dispute are, should you not bring your powers of persuasion to bear on the unconverted among us? You will never convert each other. While I agree that a factual account should be written, perhaps it should be a document preserved in your respective houses, and time and eternity will give answer to the excruciating dispute contained on this page. My prayers are with you.

I know my interest isn't about saving immortal souls. It is providing information. I am a simple man. I have a collie. Bernie Radecki 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous writer above:

Five months and thirty pages later, and you are the first one to take cognizance of the big picture, God bless you for that. You must pray. All Christians should acknowledge that there is nothing more important to man than the salvation of his soul. Everything else should aid one to accomplishing that all-important end.

I agree with you to some extent; this exchange is without a doubt a scandal, and is harmful to both Christianity and Catholicism. If I thought it was avoidable, I would not be engaging in it. I don’t, however, think it is something I can in conscience ignore.

God is truth. “I am the truth.” Whenever we defend the truth, we necessarily defend God, either directly, as in the case of religion, or indirectly, as in the case of civil and secular matters. This is what I believe.

I did not write this article on Bishop Schuckardt. After an 80-year-old lady of our Church was kidnapped by her family in an attempt to get her to renounce her faith, she found in necessary to hire an attorney in order to obtain restraining orders against them. It was during this process that she obtained from the police department a copy of the article we are currently debating. It was full of errors and very inflammatory; but unlike other publications which attack us, this one gave us a voice - verifiable facts. It provided an opportunity to tell the truth to anyone who cared to hear it about it, and best of all, to support that truth with verifiable facts. I felt morally bound to undertake that which I knew well in advance, was going to be a most unpleasant task. If I am wrong, then I’ll answer to God. I don’t do this for recreation.

One last comment, you mentioned arcane views, and at least one other person commented on “out of date” teachings of the Church. The out-of-date or arcane argument is a valid one in secular and civil matters, but not in dealing with issues relating to God. The fact that Christ shed His Blood for the redemption of the world is as true today as it was 2,000 years. Truths do not change.

Fra. John 3/18/06

The majority view supported by reliable, published sources is that Schuckardt is and has been the leader of a destructive cult. The travesty IMHO is if a tiny minority view could manipulate a public encyclopedia to reflect a "truth" under the banner of religion that seems to only be apparent to them. Schuckardt doesn't even have a church building, right? I don't think he even has church services that are open to the public, right? He didn't even appear in interviews during the recent rash of coverage in Seattle. I remember the TV news show showed a figure in shadow who appeared to me to be Fra. John! Schuckardt seems to be a bit of an enigma. I think it is critical that the article reflects this reality. Your "God is on our side tone" strikes me as out of place.

A thought just struck me. You could have a web page that explains all of this material without having to put up with meddling from others! Think of the job you could do! I would readily agree to the deletion of the whole article from Wikipedia. We could be done with it! Bernie Radecki 03:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Fra. John: Were you there when the Aryan Nations were there? Just because someone is seen on church grounds doesn't mean that they were invited. The little brigade in question was started by your bishop and it was disbanded shortly after he ran. Your bishop fled because he knew that he lost his credibility due to his lifestyle and ludicrious practices. Do you accept the practices in the 30's 40's and 50's? Pretty liberal if you ask me, but the were approved by the Holy Father(Pius XII). What kind of church operates like that? So to your comment above about old practices, they are subject to change. We are not talking about truths of the faith, we are talking about PRACTICES.

Your bishop hides and hasn't been seen in years. You have no church front for the faithful and most importantly, to bring in converts. So to say that this is a scandal is so far from the truth. The scandal is with your patriarch, Bishop Francis. HE is responsible for ruining so many lives. This is ranging from abusive practices to sexual misconduct. That is what the article is trying to tell.. THE TRUTH. But, we have you the extreme minority twisting the truth into fabricated nonsense. If your bishop would come out publicly and tell his side rather than have you defend him all the time, I just might give him some credibility. We know that this will never happen because he has been on his "alleged" death bed for some thirty years now.

Frater, make no mistake about it, we are not malicious or ill willed about it. I always try to see an incident from the other parties point of view. Trust me, I have tried give the benifit of the doubt. That is why I didn't write for a while. But, after further investigating my conclusions are staying the same. Believe it or not, I do pray for Schuckardt, that he be granted the opportunity of a sincere confession when it's his time. I once had someone tell me they missed the ferventness of the old days and I simply said, " Being fervent or pious comes from the heart, not from fear." Frater, FEAR is what keeps your people in check. This is one of the many legecys of Bishop Francis Konrad Maria Schuckardt.

George Wagner 3/18/06