Harper, please call the Archdiocese of Denver and you will discover the truth about how the Archdiocese views Charlie and his work. In the article published in the Register, which was written with bias rather than a piece seeking truth, there was a quote from Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Rene Henry Gracida. He was so upset at being misrepresented that Bishop Gracida published the following on his own blog. God's Blessings to All on this Memorial of the Holy Name of Mary LIBEL IS LIBEL EVEN WHEN IT APPEARS IN A CATHOLIC PERIODICAL Posted on May 1, 2016by abyssum Gadfly Blogger Kevin O’Brien commented on Patti Maguire Armstrong’s piece about me on the National Catholic Register that I was lying about contacting him to correct his original article accusing me of collecting “millions” from the donations button of my website. and that if I walked at all, it was only a few hundred miles. He is correct that I did not correspond with him directly. I was wrong that we had direct communication. Rather, the day after he posted the article, someone alerted me to it and asked me about it. I posted this comment on Sept. 3, 2015, in response to the question. This was attached to my post, “Live It,” which went up on September 2. (Comments can be made any time after a post is up – and WordPress date stamps all comments). Mysteriously, after I made this reply, O’Brien removed the accusation of raising “millions” and started upping his estimate of how far I physically walked. The former was just flatly and provably errant. On the latter, it probably dawned on him that since the archive of the Facebook Page remains up, enterprising people could check for themselves and see that he was just making it up as he went along. When he did not note that he had made any corrections at all – as journalistic ethics require when you make a substantive change to a post, I dismissed him as a serious person. I paid no more attention to him until the National Catholic Register and Patti Maguire Armstrong decided to use him as a reliable source at face value without vetting it. I sent this information tonight and the supporting electronic documentation to the comment section at the Register. where it is awaiting moderation at the time of this writing. Given that both the Register and Ms. Armstrong have been singularly uninterested in what I have to say or any evidence I have to offer, I am not completely confident it will clear moderation there. Of the people who told me that Armstrong was looking to do an article for the Register, several told me that she was candid that it would be a negative piece. Apparently that meant that anyone who came up with vitriol would be taken at face value and I would not be contacted at all for any response. If the plan was to publish a negative article, mission accomplished. Too bad the plan wasn’t to publish an accurate article. In the last two days, they have made several corrections to errors, including the erroneous citation in the headline that I am “banned” in Denver. Even so, the body of the article still contains that errant claim. I do not intend to address this again unless they spew new allegations. If they are determined to talk ugly about me, that is their call. But there is one thing I must say, even if it troubles some of you. I think that sometimes I have gotten into avoidable confrontations because my agreeable nature occasionally leads some to mistakenly think I am a chump who is easily rolled. A little over two decades ago, an Illinois newspaper chain decided it was going to destroy me to elevate the slate of candidates it preferred. In most jurisdictions, it is brutally hard for someone who is classified as a “public figure” to win a libel judgment. Illinois at the time was the toughest. To prove libel there, you had to prove that the publication had shown extreme reckless disregard of the facts AND their allegation must, at some point, falsely accuse the person of a crime. Otherwise, they could merrily tell any lies they want about a “public figure.” Their nearly year-long campaign did some damage to me, but it was not getting quite the traction they hoped. So they got more and more frantic. Finally, they accidentally stepped into an area that would have made me guilty of a misdemeanor, if true. That opened the door. They thought they were very clever by avoiding any allegations that were criminal, but once they unintentionally opened the door, all their provably false non-criminal accusations became evidence of actual malice on their part. Their refusal to ever call me to get my response became evidence of reckless disregard of the facts. Once their Chicago attorney finished his day-long deposition of me and found I would not crumble on the witness stand, they almost immediately began settlement offers. As I noted in a comment, that newspaper group no longer exists. It was not the $24,000 settlement and apology that did them in, but their skyrocketing libel insurance rates that took a heavy toll. Publications do NOT settle libel suits with public figures unless they are forced to, for the nuisance suits that would follow would bankrupt them. My attorney told me I was only the third public figure in a decade to prevail in such a suit in Illinois. Now, none of what the Register – or even O’Brien – has written is legally libelous, chock full of errors though it is. For a time (I know it was still there as recently as five years ago) I was on a register of the very few public figures who had prevailed in such a suit. It did not stop publications from criticizing me – and I wouldn’t have wanted it to. But it did encourage them to check their facts and check with me before running something negative. I figure since all of that was in the political realm, maybe the Register does not get that registry, even though their standards of fairness should be higher, not lower, than secular media. Though they have not crossed the line into legal libel, they have already laid a foundation for provable actual malice and reckless disregard should they allow their frenzy to prove I’m a dirty guy cause them to slip. If any publication should cross that line, unless it was clearly accidental, I would file suit. You may wonder what good that would do when the Rescue, itself, will likely have happened before any judgment could be entered. Very simply, it puts an immediate stop to the nonsense. When the suit is credible and filed by someone who has a history of prevailing even once – and only filing when it is credible – it almost immediately results in a steep increase in libel insurance. So talk as ugly as you want. But if, after talking ugly without following the most basic standards of ethics, you cross the line, I will act. That makes it easy for me. I only have to correct the occasional substantive error – and if it goes beyond that, I will leave it to the lawyers. I’m an agreeable fellow, but I am not a chump. Don’t think that I am “suffering” or any such thing. I know a few have written to console me. I have been fighting intense battles in politics and public life most of my life. These sorts of things are a minor annoyance that, if not dealt with clearly, can become major distractions. Things are too serious to not make the stakes clear. I told a couple of Church officials I spoke with that I was a little surprised to find that Church politics is every bit as petty and self-absorbed as the real thing. The major difference is that, while religious schemers have all the attitude of the players in the real thing, they lack the skills. They think they are stealthy as ninjas as they come crashing through the brush like an armadillo. I know that this will make some people uncomfortable, maybe even decide to look elsewhere. I try to avoid fights and treat people with respect for their humanity. I have never made it a secret, though, that I am a fighter when necessary. And as times continue to get tougher for people of faith, it is you who I will be primarily fighting for. Even if you talked ugly about me.
PS: Latest Charlie News Flash!!! That Deplorable Man Charlie is holding his next meeting ... just one hour hence ... at a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post in St Charles, LA .....!! Yes Friends!! It is True and Horrid News!! Did you know that those dens on iniquity are filled with smelly old War Vets who drink Beer/Whiskey, tell naughty stories and sometimes are known to stretch the truth about Military/Amorous Conquests ....... the e-mails to Denver will be stacking-up GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
I try CathyG! I'm afraid I've always had a touch of the Irish Melancholy .... and Old Age ... and "These-Days" .... but all here .. I Trust ... believe in Happy Endings with Jesus .... and when that Glorious Day arrives whatever our favorite Apparition, Seer or Vision is now will shrink to insignificance GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
I'll make it easy for Ya Dave! Mind-Word Association ... I think it's called? When Ya think of Harper ... Think Jihad Jane GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
Pull it back a notch. This is the Mother of God forum. I don't care how old you are, or what your experiences have been, you have Jesus, Mary, and the example of the saints. Follow them.
No!!!, djmoforegon It's past time for Kumbaya... and Let's All Just Get Along!!! THE STORM is upon US!! ... Be it Charlie's vision or just the Front Page of your Newspaper!! Harper gets to do HER Thing and I'll do MY Thing ...... until Padraig tells me otherwise ... OK!!?? GOD SAVE ALL HERE!!
I find it very telling that as events day by day show Charlie's first prophecy re our next President coming into focus that Harper's rabid and nonsensical attacks are increasing. Very telling.
Harper, you're to be commended, not condemned, for the work you're doing. The mistaken assumption here is that Charlie's critics - yes, I include myself in that category - are out to "condemn" Charlie. Condemn him to what? No one is passing judgement on his soul or his salvation. The only reason those concerns were brought up was to determine if his message was worth hearing. Nothing else. From Glenn Dallaire on Mystics of the Church, 9/8/16: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2016/09/is-it-necessary-for-authentic-mystic-to.html However the question being posed here is must a visionary/mystic/prophet have a impeccable moral character? To what degree is sin permitted in their lives? We find much of the answer in the Vatican document entitled "Norms regarding the manner of proceeding in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations" where in the section entitled "Criteria for judging, at least with probability, the character of the presumed apparitions or revelations", under the title of "Negative criteria" we find the directive: d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject or his or her followers when the fact [ie. apparition] occurred, or in connection with it. ***Thus, according to the official Church position, "gravely immoral acts" would constitute negative criteria--meaning they would be reliable evidence that the mystic/visionary/prophet is false.*** But what about less serious sin, like a visionary who seems boastful at times or seemingly lacking a spirit of humility at times, or one that seems to lack charity in their statements and actions towards others, or one that is always quick to defend themselves instead of mostly suffering accusations with humility and silence, or perhaps one that seems to relish food and drink excessively, or lacks a spirit of mortification? ***Given the Church's position in this matter, strictly speaking a visionary/mystic/prophet cannot (or no longer would) remain an authentic mystic during the time that he/she engages in grave, serious sin, because the effects of willful mortal sin inhibits and precludes God's direct revelation in such a person.***
Here's proof that Harper wasn't pulling anything out of her hat about the March 7 statement being released in NO: https://www.arch-no.org/articles/archdiocesan-news-oracle-august-31-2016
I noted the press release from Billings MT and the post from the News Oracle because they raise questions about the way Charlie's missions are being conducted. In New Orleans, the archdiocese published the Denver archbishop's letter strongly advising caution and prudence in regard to Charlie, and barring him from speaking at Catholic venues within Denver. However, priest(s) apparently ignored the warning from their own archdiocese, and arrived at an Episcopal school to hear confessions. Why is it a problem? From Catholic Doors : http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu742.htm Does the Catholic Church have any rules regarding where a priest can hear confessions? For example, can he hear confession in a private home, in the hospital or while taking a walk in a field? A. 1. According to Canon Law # 964, §1. "The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. §2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely. §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause." A just cause to hear confession outside of a Church or Oratory would be: - a bed-ridden hospital patient, - an elderly parishioner who cannot get to the Church, - in prison segregation, and/or - in a field during war. The following do not qualify for confession outside of a Church or Oratory: - private homes prior to the celebration of an approved and/or non-approved Holy Mass, - while taking a walk with a parishioner who wants to confess his/her sins at the moment, - during a Church event, outside of the Church or Oratory, etc. I questioned the Billings press release because it made the false claim that Charlie's message has been "vetted" by three Opus Dei priests. They have not vetted it, as noted earlier. They do not have the power to issue a judgment on the validity of Charlie's message; that power belongs to the local ordinary. According to Spirit Daily, one of Charlie's spiritual directors said this, and also noted that some of the predictions have come true while others have not. Edited to add: I'd term the "vetted" comment an example of material misrepresentation; if the true facts -- the Denver advisory and ban on Charlie appearing at Denver Catholic venues -- had been made known, it is likely fewer Catholics would have attended. As for New Orleans, priest(s) violated Canon Law during Charlie's visit. That is serious.
I find this a nasty post and am disappointed to see FS give it a 'like'. The extract from the Mystics website has nothing whatever to do with Charlie apart from him perhaps being a kind of mystic (I don't know how he categorizes his situation). But the posting of stuff about 'gravely immoral' people being unsuitable to be mystics is just an attempt to associate poor Charlie with that kind of problem. The constant attempts by people on this forum to portray him badly IS gravely sinful. I will post a sentence from the Mystics website, that FE left out, that is more appropriate: And so, while we ought not necessarily be put off by a purported mystic who, for example, has a serious attachment to coffee, we can and should dismiss any alleged mystic who engages in any form of grave, serious sin. As far as I am aware, no one has come up with any sustainable accusation of 'grave, serious,sin', confessed or otherwise!
Yep, nasty and further exposing their agenda of attacking Charlie. And attacking him while his first prophecy is being shown by the facts of day to day events to be more and more likely by the day. When Charlie said 2 years ago that our next President would not come from the electoral process, that seemed fantastical. Now, especially after Hillary's episode 2 days ago, it no longer seems fantastical. Yet their attacks on Charlie increase. Why is that? I think it's pretty clear why and they show their agenda by their actions. It's also very telling that Eggs cherry picked that article (and article written by Glenn Dallaire who follows and comments on Charlie's blog and who has himself been attacked by "anonymous" cough cough, posters for "promoting" Charlie's mission and messages). Why didn't Eggs post this pertinent part of the article that I would guess is him speaking about Charlie and answers the ridiculous attacks that he can't be real because he vapes, and has human emotions (uh, he's a human just like us people) and gets his ire up when attacked unjustly, like any of us mere mortals do: "At the same time we recognize that lesser or "venial" sins are simply part of our everyday human condition, and that even the Saints are not perfect, but that they sincerely "seek to be perfect, as the heavenly Father is perfect." I often think of the saying "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven, because they ask to be forgiven". Nevertheless, one should expect a visionary to be a person who seriously--even strenuously--seeks to live out the Gospel in all areas of their life, and endeavors to please God in all of their actions, obedient to the teachings of the Church, and living a penitential and sacrificial life in a spirit of prayer, joy and thanksgiving. In short, a person who fevently follows in the footsteps of Jesus." Full article here: http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2016/09/is-it-necessary-for-authentic-mystic-to.html
It seems you are not paying attention. In fact, that is a big reason why so many people are questioning where he is getting his visitations from. The objective situation I speak of has been brought up and is a "grave, serious sin."
While I'm waiting, out of respect and love for your soul, I'll post this from our Catechism: III. OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH 2475 Christ's disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By "putting away falsehood," they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275 2476 False witness and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions. 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty: - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; - of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279 - of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them. 2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280 2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Thank you for the CCC citation. I am not accusing anyone. The seer posted it about himself. There is no need for me to post it, it has been posted before in threads related to Charlie and on his own blog posted by himself. I just found that particular argument odd, since it has been brought up several times before.
My first post was to catch you in the lie. That was my bad. My sinful nature coming through. I am sorry, Frodo. Thankfully almost immediately the "little voice" prompted me to post that from our Catechism as it would be just as wrong of me to bait you as it would for one of us to wrongly accuse our brother. So thanks be to God and another testimony to His Love for all of us. In this late hour, we need to Love each other and start Trusting God and stop accusing and baiting and fighting with each other. We have enough real enemies from the demon seed out there after all of us, we need to start watching out for and Loving one another. And Trusting God. First and Second Commandments. It's as simple as that. We need to be simple as children to survive what is imminent.
No worries FP. The times are rough and everyone's, including my own, guard is up. Reminds me a little of this: Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Prophecy on the “Two Popes” August 25, 1820 “Then I saw an apparition of the Mother of God, and she said that the tribulation would be very great. She added that people must pray fervently with outstretched arms, be it only long enough to say three Our Fathers. This was the way her Son prayed for them on the Cross. They must rise at twelve at night, and pray in this manner; and they must keep coming to the Church. They must pray above all for the Church of Darkness to leave Rome…” “She (the Holy Mother) said a great many others things that it pains me to relate: she said that if only one priest could offer the bloodless sacrifice as worthily and with the same disposition as the Apostles, he could avert all the disasters (that are to come). To my knowledge the people in the Church did not see the apparition, but they must have been stirred by something supernatural, because as soon as the Holy Virgin had said that they must pray God with outstretched arms, they all raised their arms. These were all good and devout people, and they did not know where help and guidance should be sought. There were no traitors and enemies among them, yet they were afraid of one another. One can judge thereby what the situation was like.”
