There is now some more information about the fiasco, courtesy of David Domet himself.At least one of the two sides is opening up more on the issue. A blog called "From Rome" somehow got an exclusive interview with David. He gave much about the situation from his perspective. This blog REEEKS of an RMT perspective to me. Should one glance at it's articles, it takes an aggressive attack on the Church as being vilified, is disparaging about Vatican II, and all the other general behaviours exhibited by these RMT blogs, like it`s prime example, Rorate Caeli. Regardless, the interview is there so it must be cited and sourced.
The interview actually answers a few of my questions from my original coverage to flesh out Domet`s side of things somewhat. However, it also leaves other questions unanswered, and new ones to be asked.
Question 1: Why did Domet decide to go directly to someone in Rome about the issue when it came to taking it to the Church?
- Answer from Domet: ``... Frankly, it was easier to go to my contact in Rome than my own Chancery in Toronto.`
However, there are still partially, or fully, unanswered questions in this matter:
1a: Was there any part of negotiation, e-mails, letters, personal chats one-on-one, that took place before it was UTTERLY necessary to contact Rome to intervene in this matter?
- If we are referring to pre-legal letter, there answer possibly is YES, though what is so far, is not revealed in this recent matter.
- If we are referring to post delivery of the letter, it is clear that Domet BYPASSED what SHOULD have been sufficient means to deal with this problem. To bypass the local chancery does not give a good first impression of necessity in dealing with Rome, and could be conveyed as a lack of trust in the Church and the competency of the office of the Archdiocese of Toronto. David does not elaborate as to whether these are his personal feelings, or an objective fact of the chancery. However, if Domet`s legal council (yes, he has confirmed he has hired an attorney) told him to bypass the chancery due to information, then at least it was at the advice of his council.
1b: Could it have been dealt with the Superior of the Basilian order at the time of the initial conflict, OR His Eminence, Thomas Collins, or perhaps Bishop Boissonneau, who appears to be Domet's local ordinary based on the information in his postings on Vox AND other involvement in past that is on other Internet websites?
- Domet`s answer does not say much about WHY he decided it was clearer to bypass these people. Did he not expect a fair hearing and trial from these men? Or is it possible that the Chancery and the Basilians are WELL AWARE of his blog and his actions, and therefore WOULD NOT under any circumstance address his "concerns?"
- It is hard to tell which side is being not straightforward in all this and there clearly is more to the story for this decision.
I also asked questions about his contact. In my original post, all questions fell under the number, 2. These questions, obviously, will remain unanswered. However I should ask new questions:
2d: Just HOW did Domet get this contact so high up in the Vatican? Personal contact information in Rome is NOT given out freely, or often publicly available on the internet, obviously to protect the Church from harassment.
2e: Does Domet KNOW the contact personally from past affairs and/or his blogging?
About my original line of questioning under the number, 3, Domet has discussed what he was spoken about from this contact of the Secretary of State's office:
Domet: ".... I can only assume that the information coming back to me was his personal advice and nobody else’s and I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, I was asked to state my “intention” and I did not respond to it and was then asked the next morning again and that maybe it would be better to “seek humility” and “apologise.” I did not and was advised not to respond to either. The fact is, intervention could have happened on the first or second day...."
Are any answers to my questions being provided? Yes, and no, or even ... not quite:
3a. What was the request word for word that was given to the contact who is in the Secretariat of State's office? Not Answered.
3b. What was the reply given to Domet? Not Answered. Just summations are given from David. Again without the actual communication, even with the sender X`d out, we will not know the TRUE nature of the reply.
3c. What level was this contact? Not answered.
3d. Did this office know of the Domet affair due to Fr. Rosica's position in the Vatican, and/or the office being close to Pope Francis? Based on David`s answer, it is possible they knew OF the issue, and/or that Fr. Rosica was intending to do some legal action or contact with David. Still, why would this sender ask for an "intention" then?
My next line of questioning about the affair/statement was surrounding new demands that were placed on David. Much more clearer answers were given in regards to that, under the number #4:
Question 4a: Who is issuing these new demands on Domet? The Vatican, or Fr. Rosica's firm?
4b: Was the Vatican aware of the demands of Fr. Rosica's firm on Domet? If it was the Vatican via the SoS's office, did they decide on additional penalties? OR, Did Fr. Rosica's firm up the ante, so to speak and issue additional demands NOT present in the initial cease and desist letter?
- Answer from Domet: "Q. What was the advice given, or response from the Firm, as the case may be….? Mr. Domet: As I indicated this on my own blog, Vox Cantoris; we responded to the deadline in the first letter to prevent an injunction on their part, though not meeting their demands, of course. We stated our position and suggested other options for discussion within the Church which were rejected. Other items were then put on the table, making demands on me that were impossible to accept. It became apparent to me that we needed to communicate with clarity what we were not prepared to do, and what were prepared to do, which was to defend ourselves and engage a crowd-funding campaign to sustain it.
So the answer to the line of questioning in 4a and b is that: Fr Rosica's firm upped the ante on Domet, and it sounded like it was going to become a full cease and desist of the blog as a condition. I am NOT surprised as the initial letter from the Fogler firm did say that if Domet didn't listen, there would be higher penalty and action would be pursued. So yes, David was warned about this in the initial letter. There should be no surprise this happened.
Now, we can only assume this was proposed due to Domet's highly defensive stance of getting outside funding for a legal defense. However, this leads to new questions:
Question 4c: What exactly was communicated by Rosica's firm that was "put on the table" as Domet claims whereby he had to suggest a legal firefight and Internet crowd-funding?
Question 4d: Was one of the conditions the total shutdown of Vox Cantoris, with possibly a ban from all internet blogging activity, and/or criticism?
I do have other new questions though surrounding the Rosica and Domet affair though:
Domet: "Mr. Domet: I sought advice from a very small group of close advisors. I did not contact the law firm directly – I needed to secure the right Solicitor and found her, a Catholic with some other background knowledge which I cannot reveal but which aided our strategy."
- Question 5a: Who is this female solicitor who Domet retained as legal council? Since we know who Fr. Rosica's lawyers are publicly, it would be only fair if it were revealed who his attorney was.
- Question 5b: Domet mentions "... A Catholic with some other background knowledge which I cannot reveal but which aided our strategy." What is this lawyer's background knowledge? Is it civil litigation? Is it corporate law (as S&L is a corporation as a business?) Is it dealings with the Catholic Church, either civilly or criminally (which could be anything from property, finances, or dare I say it, priest sexual abuse cases???) Does this lawyer have specific, secret knowledge of the Archdiocese of Toronto, OR Fr. Rosica, that would give Domet the legal advantage to represent him?
- Question 5c: Where did Mr. Domet get this counsel, who possibly has an 'ace up her sleeve' to use the phrase for a significant advantage? Was this from Domet's friends online who are local? His friends from the Toronto Traditional Mass Society and/or the priests he works with in the Latin Mass? Was it from one of his prior engagements that involves partially or fully, the Catholic faith, such as the non-canonical Society of St. Pius X (which he did admit was an interim position in a Vox Cantoris blog post, and they DO have a Toronto chapel as I've mentioned before on S.U.D.) The counsel's advantage and where she was obtained would reveal an interesting element to this case.
Well that is the update to this case. Not everything is clear about both sides, and even now, there are even more questions that must be answered, before one can truly assess where the Lord's work was done, if He was anywhere to be present. While many things were, are, and continue to be written as more time passes, it is clear that only the Lord can know what was in the hearts of all involved in this matter, both directly, and the outside commentators and witnesses in this whole affair. Regardless, this is still a dark stain for the Catholic Blogosphere, especially the traditional side,and bad public relations for Fr. Rosica. Whether he has earned this or this is unjust, we do not TRULY know, as the Internet coverage is unfairly biased in favour of Domet.
My new fear in all this now, is that the RMTs and their adherents will be given wanton excuses to harass, insult, and degrade anyone who gets in the way of their Pharisaical goal/mission of Purification of the Catholic Church from anyone perceived by them to be an actor of Satan. Why readers, I might even get harassed once again by this cabal and am awaiting the online cannon fire from these RMTs. It's a shame that the words of our Father, Papa, Pope Francis, are being continually ignored, though they are gaining even more credence.
You know, this whole debacle has made me personally realize, that Francis' papacy is likely, TRUTHFULLY what the Church deserves right now, in correspondence to the egregious sinners on both sides. I truly think that this papacy of his is part of the Church's purification process, not only of the Spirit of Vatican II, but the newest forms of Protestantism, Gnosticism, and Jansenism, disguised as Radical Catholic Traditionalism hiding in the shadow of the Latin Mass (though again, remember, ``A few rotten apples spoil the bunch.``). This papacy is bringing all that crud on both sides to the surface, so as to return the Church to its happy medium. Let's also not forget this gem from Scripture with my emphasis in boldface:
" But immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore, do not associate with them, 8 for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light isfound in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord, 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of the things that they do in secret; 13 but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light ...." Ephesians 5:3-13, NRSV CE 2nd Ed.
Needless to say, it seems that Pope Francis` papacy is true to the words of St. Paul`s letter, and quite a lot of sins within our sinful family, both Liberal and Radical Traditionalist, are being exposed to the light. Keep it coming Pope Francis! It`s clear that you ARE the Pope we need at the moment.
P.S.: Comments are off for this one, and this post is RED FLAG status. Have fun on your own blog and don`t try anything stupid with the e-mail. Legal threats? I can get access to legal council too you know, and I will defend myself and my true, Catholic friends if it comes down to it.