Talk:Francis Schuckardt/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

Contents

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)

Great visuals of Schuckardt - however, they are very dated. I see Mark South in one of them - that's from the Mt. St. Michael Days. do you have anything more recent?

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 (removal of personal attack). 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

Frat. JOhn - I was allowed in on "the secret" while on pilgrimage to Germany. Afterwards I greeted the Bishop with "Your Holiness". I asked his permission to tell two others that he had been mystically crowned Pope by Our Lady of the Snows. He directly gave me that permission. He didn't tell me the name "Adrian" but he did acknowledge that he had been mystically crowned pope. (Laurie Pipan)

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

In 1979 Schuckardt gave a retreat at Chrystal Mountain. He told the religious in no uncertain times that (removal of personal attacks). He [Chicoine] gave a sermon on the Gentle Heart of Jesus - and life in the convents immediately changed. (Laurie Pipan)
What you wrote above is material that would be in violation of Wikipedia policy to place into the article and therefore serves no purpose except that of casting a negative light on the subject. This makes it a personal attack and vandalism and therefore subject to removal. Fra. John 3/23/06

It makes me chuckle that you would believe at all that the congregation would have accepted a replacement of Chicoine by Fidelis. You've got to be kidding! Chicoine was there day in day out patiently meeting the needs of the parish. (Laurie Pipan)

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 [removed personal attack]

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 attitude 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, in my opinion, 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. You didn't sneak in; you feigned interest in our Church and were invited in. 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 [removal-npa]. His practices have been 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 [removal-npa], 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 [removal-npa] 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

Joe - I don't think anyone "hates" Schuckardt. I think he started out with the best intentions. I certainly hope so. He was a talented, dynamic speaker who could hold an audience like puddy in his hands. He could have been the greatest of leaders. And what happened to him is deplorable. I only hope it was the drugs that he took for his ailments that are to blame for his demise. I hope all the devotion and attention didn't go to his head. (laurie pipan)

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, they have some serious issues and in regards to the issue above it is a lie. All it shows 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.

No Frater John - it's you that wants it both ways. You don't want witnesses to tell about their experiences but you freely talk about how you were Chicoine's favorite brother to go jogging with and then you are allowed to write off your own personal experiences. It's just not fair. For the most part we leave your writings alone because they serve to show your frame of mind. You should leave the discussion page alone. (Laurie Pipan)
Laurie Pipan:
You need to take cognizance of a few distinctions you are glossing over. When someone puts a question to me, as is almost always the case in the above removals you made, you have no business erasing the answers that are directed to those questions. If you don't want to hear the answers, then don't ask the questions. With a few exceptions (in hindsight) the answers were not personal attacks; if I wanted to make personal attacks, believe me, you would know it.
I don't believe you can find anywhere on this Discussion Page an incident where I have done what you and your friends are doing, i.e., venting a bunch of negatives about someone that Wikipedia policy (and Catholic doctrine) don't allow. You don't see me going over to Chicoine's Article and trashing him, nor the CMRI Article and trashing them,... It is uncivil and unChristian behavior. Fra. John 3/24/06

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

I don't doubt Chicoine slept with a loaded gun under his pillow right before June 1984. I don't think it was being paranoid. He was playing it smart! (Laurie Pipan)

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.

I WAS THERE TOO FRA JOHN - I AM AN ACTUAL WITNESS OF EVENTS BUT YOU ERASE WHAT I WRITE. WHY? THEY ARE NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS. THEY ARE TRUE FACTUAL HAPPENINGS AND SHOULD BE RECORDED. (Laurie Pipan)
You did not live at the Priory where Bishop Schuckardt and Chicoine lived. Compared to me, you witnessed next to nothing. You were not in the thick of it.
I've asked all of you time and time again to familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you had done that you would know that I erase personal attacks (a leave a lot unerased). You would know that your "personal experiences..." have no place here, as it proper and fair. You would know that writing in CAPS is considered shouting and not permitted. Fra. John 3/24/06

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 [removal-npa]. He even defines the term "Catholic Church" differently. [removal-npa] 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. [removal-npa] Fra. Johnhas 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 separate 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

From the Anonymous Writer to Frater John: I appreciate your thoughtful answer to my observation, which I made in good faith. As this spectacle has unfolded, particularly after your response to me and some of the more recent exchanges, I appreciate the fact that you have been patient and methodical (sometimes imperfect) in attempting to respond to the objections/observations raised by others. Your contributions to the article seem logical and consistent, and your explanations on this talk page appear to be an application of valid Christian principles in what must be a conflagration of human emotions. I appreciate even more that you are motivated by a desire for the salvation of souls by informing their consciences with these Christian principles. I am in full agreement that that is truly "the big picture". Thank you also for the spiritual advice; I will pray and reflect on what you have said. (March 21, 2006)

Thank you for your kind words, if you have read much of these talk pages then you are surely aware that kind words are a rare event. I'm trying to keep everyone, myself included, in line with Wikipedia policy regarding these talk pages, but if you ever want to talk in a informal forum, please feel free to contract me. God bless you. Fra. John 3/22/06 - emal:juak1967@yahoo.com
To Anonymous Writer,

I want to just ask you from a neutral point of view, do you think we are on a witch hunt? Do you think the article is telling the truth as it sits now? or just one sided. I agree that the salvation of souls is important, but, the truth of the matter is, is that Fra John is keeping this article one sided. As catholics we always need to be open to truth and I always strive for the truth. But, after hearing the answers to all my questions, I am compelled to believe that the allegations are not false. Granted, there are sinners on both sides, but the evidence is conclusive. There is a lot of damaging things going on (and went on) which need to be told. I have no ill will, just compassion for people who don't have the ability to make decisions on their own. This whole ordeal is starting to take its toll on me.

P.S. I have a good inclination as to who you are, stay involved and keep praying. George Wagner 03/21/06

To Mr. Wagner: I delayed in posting an answer to your message, and am somewhat ambivalent about doing so now. It is my understanding that the purpose of this page is to debate the underlying article, and attempt to resolve differences among those who contribute to it. Unfortunately, however, this page is loaded with personal antipathies, which I am extremely reluctant to stimulate. Your inclination as to my identity concerns me, not because our aquaintance is virtually impossible, but because I feel that you would (perhaps unintentionally) draw me into this drama, which is certainly not what a discussion page is about. I suspect that there are many good souls who have refrained from comment because they do not wish to be drawn into what is obviously a very bloody personal conflict.

To respond directly to your questions, I would say that Frater John writes from a very definite point of view, and one that is valuable. So do all of the other contributors to this article. Whether they are in the majority or minority is meaningless (truth stands on is own two feet, and doesn't need a congregation of believers to be genuine). The theory in this second dimension (i.e., man's struggle to come to a knowledge of the truth) is that IF the encyclopedia's guidelines are followed, a strain of the truth will emerge. That truth will not be perfectly palatable to all, but it will be the best that can be had under these circumstances.

You must understand that someone like me -- on the outside of this drama looking in -- have no sense of "the allegations" other than what we read on this page. Obviously some of the contributors have had some kind of experience that has radically affected them. But as a rational man who can make decisions on his own (all men can, vis a vis free will), I have been disturbed by arbitary namecalling (narrow-minded, imprisoned-in-his-own-mind, one-sided, etc., etc.) There is help for any condition that tends to diminish acceptable social behavior to the point of hostility and namecalling. Speaking as a psychiatrist, I would suggest therapy. The evidence on this page is that Frater John has been consistent in attempting to apply Wikipedia guidelines to this article, and has made concessions to that end. I find that commendable and on the social mainstream.

I certainly do not want to add a subplot to an already overladen story, so do not take my comments as an invitation to open debate. Your personal experiences give you an advantage which I grant to you. I merely felt it important to commend the supernatural motives manifested by Frater John (interestly enough, not by others), and to praise his superior form in the handling of this debate. Perhaps all contributors, as he has suggested, should have a cooling off period, forget their respective points of view, and examine the rules of the game.

Another suggestion which has served me well over the years: Sincerely endeavor to take your opponent's side, and reexamine your position in light of that attempt, which serves "the truth" far better than self-serving conviction. Respectfully. (March 28, 2006)

To the anonymous writer: Let me point out that if you knew the allegations made against Schuckardt and the TLRCC were true beyond the shadow of a doubt, you may well come to an understanding where the frustration regarding Fra. John's control of the article is coming from. Let's say you knew the mayor was embezzling lots of funds funds from orphanages. Lets say you knew he was accused of embezzling a large amount of funds from several orphanages 20 years previously. Now, if you didn't know he was an embezzler, you might look at his public record and still think highly of him. Once the accusations came out, your regard for his public record may cause you to still give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the charge of embezzlement. But if you KNEW he was an embezzler because you saw him embezzling, say you were his accountant and he gave you the funds, then you would not allow his other traits to cloud your judgement regarding his guilt. If you would like, please post me on my Wikipedia User page. I really value a unbiased third party input. Incidentally, your suggestion of therapy is well stated. I am sure it would be beneficial for me. Bernie Radecki 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki:
Dressing up your personal attacks still renders them personal attacks. What you wrote above has no probative value because your alleged personal experiences are immaterial according to Wikipedia policy. Absent any relevance, the above serves no other purpose than to disparage Bishop Schuckardt by accusation. I believe you must know that, because you claimed to have read Wikipedia's policies. I have been exercising a lot of forbearance in this regard, but the next time you post a personal attack, I'm going to seek to have you banned. Enough is enough. Athanasius303 19:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Fra. John: 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)

Bernie Radecki:
Majority view is not necessarily the correct view. The majority of people thought Noah and his children were insane for building a massive ship on a mountain top. The majority of people thought Christ was worthy of death. The majority of people thought the earth was flat. The majority was wrong. Truth is wholly independent of consensus. I am not comparing us to Christ, nor to the holy patriarch Noah, but am using Them to illustrate a point.
To be a Catholic one is required to adhere to a set of beliefs. Those who profess all of the beliefs required by the Catholic Church and receive Baptism are Catholic. Those who do not profess these beliefs or are not baptized are not Catholic. To be Catholic, one does not need to own a Church building (Christ didn’t have one did He). St. Athanasius told his flock when they were exiled by the MAJORITY Arian clergy: “They have the buildings, but we have the Faith.” Being Catholic does not require satisfying you, George Wagner, nor anyone of our other critics, which is why your unflagging attacks and criticisms mean little to us.
The article should not reflect your opinions about Bishop Schuckardt, whether his is an enigma to you or otherwise. The article is to present verifiable facts from a neutral point of view.
Regarding starting a Web site and your consequent agreement to do away with this article, I’ll remind you of something you stated not too long ago: “You don’t own the article and neither do I.” I’m posting a notice on the bottom of this page. Let’s all please try to adhere to it.
Fra. John 3/19/06

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 [removed personal attack]. Do you accept the practices in the 30's 40's and 50's? Pretty liberal if you ask me, but they were approved by the Holy Father(Pius XII). 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.

The Aryan Nations visiting Mt. St. Micheal's is a verifiable fact and relevant to this article; it should remain. Fra. John 3/20/06

[removed personal attack] So to say that this is a scandal is so far from the truth. 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. [removed personal attack]

This has nothing to do with the article. Your stamp of credibility is of no consequence. . Fra. John 3/20/06

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 benefit 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, -[removed personal attack] George Wagner 3/19

Your personal conclusions are not veribiable facts and do not belong in this article. Fra. John 3/20/06

Frater John, I just reverted the discussion you deleted with some changes. If you read this you will see that there is absolutely nothing questionable. A personal attack is directed toward an individual and doesn't have any direct connection with him or her(opinion). Now, if your bishop has been accused of homosexual acts(clearly stated in the article, please don't remove) and I make mention of something in this discussion, it's not an attack.

Below is a direct copy from Wikipedia's "Personal Attack" guideline page:
  • Specific examples of personal attacks include but are NOT LIMITED TO (my emphasis):
    • Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
    • Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
    • 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.
    • Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
    • Profanity directed against another contributor.
    • Threats of legal action
    • Death threats.
    • Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.
Please read it carefully, because in my opinion you are constantly in violation of this policy. There is no excuse for personal attacks, besides which they are wholly unproductive of any benefical end. Fra. John 3/20/06

This article should reflect who and what Schuckardt is. [removed personal attack] He also reflects the group as a whole, which is considered pertinent information. Frater, these are facts not attacks.

Wiki policy states that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view. It also states that they should not contain any original reasearch, but rather only verifiable facts. No article should reflect your opinion about anyone or anything. If it does, it violates policy. Fra. John 3/20/06

I believe the Counter Claims and Schism sections should be deleted, just as I keep doing on the Denis Chicoin page. The reason is that the information is not verified from any source other than Catholic Church teaching, a church to which you do not belong. It also adds a lot of fat to the article. It seems more of a forum for you to post your reasons for why Schuckardt left, you have yet to prove your case. There is just too much evidence....... George Wagner 3/19/06

The sources given in the Answers to Accusations and Counter Claims fall with Wikipedia's policy of verifiable facts. The fact that you don't like them is of no consequence. Wikipedial policy also states regarding controversial articles: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant." While I obviously do not believe we are misguided or repugnant, you do, so the Answers to Accusations and Counter Claims falls under this policy as well. This section is properly placed in this article. Fra. John 3/20/06

Request for all contributors to adhere to Discussion Page Policy

Bernie Radecki, George Wagner, et al: Over the course of the past 5 months I have answered every legitimate question put to me, both in this Discussion Page and in the Article. We keep going around and around and get nowhere, which is why I look forward to the mediation process. The purpose of this page is to discuss the Article and try to reach consensus regarding it. All of us, including me, have frequently strayed from this policy. Let’s face it, you are not going to change my opinions and beliefs, and I have no expectation to change yours. I’m sure we all have better things to do than engage in fruitless exchanges. Can we all please stay focused, on course and use this page for its intended purpose only. We have email addresses and other avenues of communication if any one of us wishes to engage in personal discussions beyond the scope of this page. Thanks. Fra. John 3/19/06

George Wagner: Rape victim advocacy groups will tell you that it is cruel to publicly post the name of a rape victim. Show some respect for this poor nun and keep her name out of this article. Fra. John 3/19/06

Mr. Belzak, In the paragraph above, addressed to my husband and to George Wagner "et al", You stated: "I have answered EVERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION PUT TO ME." No, I am sorry. You have not. When asked if Mr. Francis Schuckardt has a church building, you replied that Jesus had no church building. [Removed personal attacks] As for the poor nun who suffered rape and was almost murdered along with her companion, [Revomed personal attacks} I personally know her, and my heart goes out to her. She is a wonderful and compassionate human being, [Removed personal attacks] other than the advice to pray for God's assistance. Francie Radecki 3/19/06

Talk Pages are not a Soapbox for Personal Opinions

Francie Radecki: I believe I have answered EVERY legitimate question and a lot of illegitimate questions regarding Bishop Schuckardt and our Church. What makes you people think you have the right to demand answers from me outside of the scope of this article? Questions outside of the scope of this article are not legitimate questions and quite frankly, are none of your business. Here is a legitimate question for you: who appointed you as our judge?

Here is the bottom line: anyone who would take the time to review some of your comments on this Talk Page, especially the ones that had to be edited out, would arrive at the inescapable conclusion that you are indeed ill-willed, the pages speak for themselves. You are not interested in the truth, you’re just looking for a fight. Read Wiki policies and stop using this page as a soapbox to spout you ill-will. Fra. John 3/20/06


Francie: As Fr. Denis once said, "It's like throwing a rock against a bus," that bus has since departed and keeps on going. No matter how much evidence is compiled, the end result is continuious deletions and the rocks keep bouncing off. Just keep perservering and I'm confident the world will get an article that will reflect the truth. God Bless.

George Wagner 3/16/06

Mr. Belzak: Thank you for once again proving my point. You refuse to answer LEGITIMATE questions put to you. [removal of personal attack] francie radecki 3/20/06

Article awaiting mediation

I think it would be best for all to hold off editing the article until the mediation process has run its course. The article is on the list and awaiting the assignment of a mediator. Making changes now may gum up or complicate the mediation process. When I filed the request, the estimate was anywhere from 2 to 20 days. If you want a recommendation, I think now would be a good time to read Wikipedia's many guidelines on editing articles, what is appropriate, etc. Some of the items now being changed in the article are on the list for mediation. It is spring, how about a break until we see what a mediator recommends? Bernie Radecki 18:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. You need to convince your friend George Wagner of the wisdom of this. While it is waiting mediation, it should not be subjected to what is essentially vandalism by this person. It would be wrong to allow him to do this, so I will continue to try to preserve the integrity of this article from his attacks upon it. Fra. John 3/20/06

Wikipedia Violations are Rampant

To George Wagner and Francie Radecki: Both of you are using [removal of personal attack] and this is in clear [removal or personal attack]. Please take the time to read [removal of personal attack]. [removal or personal attack][removal of personal attack] I don’t want to do that, so again, please READ [removal of personal attack]Thank you. Fra. John 3/20/06

Fra John: On your counterclaims, you mention the following: Many of the marriages that ended up in separation (due to one member joining the TLRCC), were never valid marriages according to Catholic Church law.

To Rose:
You’ve asked a lot of questions and in an effort to answer those questions in a readable format, I’ve taken the liberty to break up your paragraph by inserting my answers at the appropriate locations.

How do you know they weren't valid marriages?

The reason I know they were not valid marriages is because a qualified member of the clergy studied each case, presented his findings to Bishop Schuckardt, who in turn studied the evidence and then rendered a decision regarding the validity of the marriage in question based upon Canon Law. It is the role of Catholic bishops, who posses judicial jurisdiction, to render a decision in such a cases; just as it is the role of our civil judges to render decisions based upon the laws of the land they serve.

I know Catholic couples who were married for many years and were both faithfully practicing their Catholic faith until Schuckardt came into their lives. If Schuckardt is a true Catholic bishop would he not be an advocate of the Sacrament of marriage?

Yes, of course he would. But Canon Law states the conditions that have to be met in order for a marriage to be valid. If those conditions have not been met, then the couples in question are not married. It would be a mockery of the Sacrament of Marriage for a bishop to tell someone they are married when in fact they are not. And if he were to tell them they are married, when in fact they are not, they still would not be married. A cruel thing to say the least. A true advocate of the Sacrament of Marriage would not pervert the Sacrament by lying to couples about their true marital status, even if in so stating he becomes very unpopular. As a side to this: Bishop Schuckardt did not of course write Canon Law, previous popes established Canon Law and demanded its compliance under strict penalties.

Would he not be counseling couples to remain faithful to their marriage vows?

Those who were validly married - he of course did counsel them to remain together, unless certain conditions existed whereby Canon Law allowed otherwise. Some of these conditions are outlined in the article along with accompanying footnotes

On the contrary, isn't it true that a number of women in Schuckardt's group have been counseled to file for divorce from their husbands for no other reason than their husbands do not agree with Schuckardt?

No, it's not true. To my knowledge, several women had petitioned Bishop Schuckardt for a civil divorce and were granted permission to pursue it if they so desired. A civil divorce is allowed in Canon Law when certain conditions are met and these ladies qualified. They all understand that in the eyes of God they are still married and could not marry again until such time as their husbands died. Canon Law allows for civil divorce as a mechanism to deal with civil matters that always accompany any marriage.

Isn't it true, john Francis that many members in Schuckardt's group just disappear from their families?

Some have left “disappeared” and kept undisclosed their locations. The number of these cases have been grossly exaggerated and the reasons for doing so have been completely left out or grossly distorted and embellished. There were several cases in which horrible spousal abuse played a determining role. Each case had it’s own particular set of circumstances, but I neither have the time to get into them nor do I feel it is appropriate to do so. The basic principle which justifies this conduct is that a person’s first obligation is to God, if anyone would seriously hinder this God-given obligation, then that person must remove that hindrance in a morally permissible way. That is what happened here.

Isn't it true that all forms of communication from outside members is controlled or completely cut off?

The answer to this question is no, it is not true. Again, please read the appropriate section in the article for a more detailed explanation.

So husbands who truly love and honor their wives have no way to contact them and try to save their marriage?

I know of no wife, whose husband who truly loves and honors her, being counseled to avoid that man. Nor do I believe it has ever happen in our Church. I suspect you are hearing a one-sided story whereby an abusive husband is throwing the blame for his own personal misdeeds on someone else. I know of several incidents where this is exactly what took place. Get both sides of the story before you pass judgment.

The following is the teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage; this information is taken from the Baltimore Catechism.459. Why does the bond of the sacrament of Matrimony last until the death of husband or wife? The bond of the sacrament of Matrimony lasts until the death of husband or wife because Christ has said: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." rose. 3/20/06 "I will allow no man to narrow or degrade my soul by making me hate him." Booker T. Washington

Again, this is of course true when there IS A VALID MARRIAGE. And again, Canon Law gives a lot of reasons in which one spouse can separate from the other. But what “asunder” means here is divorce, not separation for lawful reasons. Do you think God would command a wife to remain with a husband who gets drunk every night and beats her up? Of course not. Under such circumstances she could separate herself (and even hide) from him, but she could never remarry, because she would still be married to him. Fra. John 3/20/06

P.S. - For the [personal attack]there. I do not know who this lady is, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt in favor of her sincerety and answered her questions, even though their relevance to this article is remote. If you spin these answers and use them as an excuse to continue to try to pick a fight, I will deal with them appropriately. Fra. John 3/21/06

Fra John - How do you justify the above writings? Most of your statements are from your "personal knowledge". Many of us also have "personal knowledge" (Removal of personal attacks). P.S. If you delete what I have written here, I will delete everything you wrote above. (Laurie Pipan)

Laurie Pipan:
The article is not based upon personal knowledge, but upon verifiable facts and/or other sources permitted by Wikipedia. What you wrote above, however, is not relevant to the article and serves no purpose except that of casting a negative light on the subject. This makes it a personal attack and vandalism and therefore subject to removal. Fra. John 3/23/06

My mother and Father were married in the Catholic Church just after Pearl Harbor. They had 8 children with me being the youngest. They were active in the parish and all the children attended parochial school and Catholic high school (except me). They met Schuckardt around 1968. The divorce was finalized around 1976, but they were leagally separated in 1974. I remember them arguing about my sister and I going to school at the unaccredited TLRCC school in Couer dÁlene Idaho. We lived in Toledo Ohio. It was a terrribly bitter divorce that divided my family for almost 20 years. A similar story was also played out between my uncle Hank and Aunt Emily with their kids. Their divorce was finalized about the same time. The article has a few references to the court case that my father and uncle brought against the TLRCC for alienation of affection. Another irony: the woman I married is the sister of Puline Urban whose marriage to Jerry Oneil ended in divorce. Jerry Oneil also sued the TLRCC for Alienation of Affection. This too is referenced in the article. People get divorced all the time, but the point is that the cause of the divorces centered on the uniqueness of the teachings of the TLRCC. Bernie Radecki 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a letter from my grandfather - he contacted your father and uncle. (Removal of personal attack). (okay this might not meet the standards - I get it if this gets deleted but hopefully Bernie will see it before it gets wiped out since it's relevant to him- Laurie Pipan

If you want to contact Bernie Radecki about things not germane to this article, you should use his email. You apparently chose this page instead to further your efforts at disparaging Bishop Schuckardt in a public forum - this of course is not permitted. Fra. John 3/23/06

Frater: I have something interesting. This article is about Schuckardt and his life and all the controversy. Earlier in the discussion you mentioned that Schuckardt wasn't excommunicated when he was consecrated a bishop. There was no papal mandate therefore according to church law, he incurred ipso facto excommunication. This fact is not added in the article. You clearly claim to not be a part of the catholic church but rather an off shoot that claims to be catholic. You pick and choose from church teaching to defend your position, but you do not recognize this little detail. If you don't accept the teachings of the catholic church and are seperated from the pope, shouldn't you adopt a set of cannons and laws of your own? The article is confusing to the general public.

George Wagner 03/20/06

In the article, I previously added that consecration of a bishop without authorization from Rome incurs excommunication. As proof, I cited the action of the Vatican against Lefevre as recorded in Mediator Dei. Fra. John did add a sentance after my addition regarding not being able to be excommunicated from a church to which one does not belong. He added a footnote citation. I must admit, I don't quite understand the meaning of his addition, but there are other points of contention I am more interested in settling at this time. I agree the article is confusing. The article confuses me and I am familiar with many of the issues. I am sure it will be improved in time once the parties involved come to a common understanding of some ground rules. Bernie Radecki 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons the article may be confusing to some extent is in the matter in which it developed. Different people at different times piecemealed this article together over the course of several months and rendered it a little choppy. I'm all for improving its readability, provided it does not come at the cost of sacrificing facts. Fra. John 3/02/06


Mr. Belzak: My point in removing a gross amount of your comments to me was to show you what it is like to have nearly all content removed by another's perception of a personal attack, when no personal attack was intended. I am not frightened by your threats of sanctions. There will be no need for you to continue to harrass me in this manner. I am finished with you [removal of personal attacks] I do have to admit, though, it has been quite amusing messing with your head. [removal of personal attacks] francie 3/21/06

Fra John: I am just going to sit back and see what happens with the intervention from wikipedia case worker. Until then I'm done.... George Wagner 03/21/06

In the article Fra John you write "the very infrequent Masses that Bishop Francis held were not mandatory..." When the laity show up for an evening Sunday Mass, and it was announced that the Bishop is coming... isn't that a mandatory Mass? Where else were those who planned the evening Mass supposed to go? And what about Easter Mass? In 1984 Easter Mass was delayed until WEDNESDAY!!!! I remember a guest from out of state asking "You mean we're not going to have Mass on Easter?" (Removal of personal attacks) (Laurie Pipan)

What was extracted above is material that would be in violation of Wikipedia policy to place into the article and therefore serves no purpose except that of casting a negative light on the subject. This makes it a personal attack and vandalism and therefore subject to removal. Fra. John 3/23/06

Intersesting trivia that relates to the practice of people waiting for Schuckardt's mass to begin. (Thus it is relevant on the talk page and is not in any way a personal attack.) The last formal service that Schuckardt officiated at Mt. St. Michael's in Spokane Washington was the Easter mass. I think the Easter Vigil is the proper term. Anyhow, part of that vigil is a baptism. Schuckardt baptised my baby son Kevin. The date was May 6th, 1984. Easter that year was actually two weeks earlier. So for that period of time, all the statues were kept wrapt in purple awaiting Schuckardt saying mass. I remember we would bundle our little baby up and go and wait for hours at church only to be told Schuckardt was too sick so we'd have to try again in a few days. Bernie Radecki 22:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction. You are right - two weeks not three days. Wow. (Laurie Pipan

A brief response to all the verbiage above:

Over 50% of the marriages in this country end up in divorce, and when it happens to your family it’s someone else’s fault!

I believe one of the reasons why this page has become so bloated is that you (collectively) and I argue from fundamentally different principles. My arguments are almost always based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church before Vatican Council II; your arguments are almost always based upon your opinions and emotions. There is no common ground to be found here, which is one of the reasons why all of this is so futile: it will never end.

Can’t you just accept the fact that no middle ground is possible under these circumstances and stop using Wikipedia as forum for partisan venting? Fra. John Athanasius303 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it: You - pinnicle of truth. Others: emotional wrecks. Much clearer now. Bernie Radecki 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Misuse: Not a Soapbox

To all contributors:

These talk pages are now over 40 pages long and only a small portion of it is actually dedicated to the end for which it was established. Everyone, myself included, needs to get off our perspective soapboxes and follow Wikipedia policy.

If you are using these talk pages, as I suspect you are, to try to bury me with non-verifiable accusations and to prejudice the mediator, this too is a violation. Why is it that every week I have to try to keep you people on policy?

Wikipedia Policy on Talk Pages:

On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.
Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another h2g2 or Everything2. See also: Wikiquette
It's entirely natural that partisan disputes take place on talk pages. It is the purpose of talk pages that such disputes be resolved on the talk page rather than in the article itself.

Fra. John 3/22/06

Fra John: I agree. That is why I am starting a web page dedicated to discussion. As for now, I am waiting for the mediation in order to straighten out the article.

George Wagner 3/22/06

Frater, Not to beat a dead horse, or to antagonize, but can you prove according Wiki Policy that Fr. Denis overthrew the Bishop because of greed and that he was untrustworthy. First hand information is not a credible source. I read that section again and see no support. I know I said I would sit back, and I am, but please clarify this matter for me. I will make no changes in the article until further notice. George Wagner 3/23/06

George Wagner:
You are beating a dead horse because you do not familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One Wikipedia policy states: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views." There are other policy guidelines as well that support the inclusion of that portion of the article as well, but I don't have them on hand at the present. Please, please, please familiarize yourself with these policies and guidelines, because you are very frequently in violation of them and you could save both yourself and others a great deal of angst by learning and abiding by them. Thanks. Fra. John 3/23/06

Why is there an article on Francis Schuckardt?

My point of view is that the only notable quality about Schuckardt that makes an article about him allowable in Wikipedia is that his TLRCC has a history of the practices of a destructive cult. This is the only reason he has been mentioned in public sources (except those sources relating to court cases dealing with his flight from Spokane or his alleged role in breaking up marriages). His personal views on religion are not published as far as I know. No books, no submissions to magazines to be published. He seems to go out of his ways to keep his views to himself. He is not a public figure. He is controvewrsial but he is too tiny to have an article about his shrouded views. They are so shrouded that the expositino in the article amounts to original research. His TLRCC is way too tiny to be noteworthy with only a single priest and a handful of members. It just pops up on the news, not for its views on religion, but because of some bizarre practice that it holds. Above Fra. John wrote this when he deleted out a newbie's input: "...is not relevant to the article and serves no purpose except that of casting a negative light on the subject". That "negative light" in my mind is the sole purpose of there being an article. It is not a personal attack but rather corraborating evidence that supports material in the article. It is obvious from reading the talk page that the article would have much more "negative light" in it if it were not for the edits and reverting done by Fra. John. I hope the mediation process clarifies this point. Bernie Radecki 19:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki:
Many of your “facts” in the above paragraph are not facts at all, rather they represent your own partisan views. I will address the other issues below. Fra. John 3/24/06

Well written. I am 100% behind you. And to Fra. John - your worries are over - I don't plan to visit this website anymore. I have a life... and I see this isn't going anywhere. We'll have to come up with a better website where the TRUTH is not deleted so easily. My best wishes to you. You can pass this along - There was a time when I PRAYED Bishop Francis would come to my rescue. I couldn't believe that a "Man of God" could know the horrific conditions in the convent. We lived in a reign of terror. And the few times he would visit he would preach about being soft Americans and would put people in charge like Sr. Mercedes who was so over the top with strict forms of punishments. Then Father Denis got involved and everything changed. Think about it from our perspective. He stopped the weird behaviors that were going on... I'm not saying he was a saint. But he was real and he pulled me out of hole so deep that I see him as a hero and will always defend his good name. Bye for now. And thank God for the history page :) (Laurie Pipan)

Everyone:
Please take note the following Wikipedia policy guideline:
  • “Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view.”

Fra. John 3/24/06

Article on Francis Schuckardt Meets Wikipedia Criteria

Wikipedia states certain “notability” conditions which should be met to sustain an article. Bishop Schuckardt not only meets these criteria, but he exceeds them. It is in meeting these conditions, and not the ones imposed by his critics, that determine if this article is proper to this online encyclopedia. Without question, it is.

It becomes more and more apparent to me that Bishop Schuckardt’s very vocal opponents will never be satisfied until this article reflects their own partisan views. Having in the main failed to achieve that objective in the article, they then tried to run an end game around the article and put their non-verifiable partisan views in the Discussion Page. After having much of that illegitimate material removed per policy, they now want to remove the article altogether. They like to claim for themselves the “majority view,” and relegate his proponents as “to tiny to be noteworthy.” Wikipedia makes an interest observation regarding people who have articles in Wikipedia:

  • “Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractor's views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. We should be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view.” Fra. John 3/24/06

Fra. John: If you can prove the above note in regards to your situation, then I will jump on board. But, the reality of this happening is like me winning the lottery!

George Wagner 03/24/06

Regarding what the minority view is.

  • Fra. John: You appear to be the only one who is questioning what is the minority view. Stop and think to yourself: Why are there so many critics of the TLRCC? Why does no one outside the TLRCC support it? Why is the TLRCC identified as a destructive cult by former members, organizations associated with spreading the message of Fatima, members of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, National news shows, newspaper and magazine articles, and cult awareness agencies? If the mediator lines up with your view, I will go away and allow you to continue your work here. Please give some thought to what you will do if the mediator places your views in the minority. Our actions at that time will say something about our character. I can't wait. I mean I really, really look forward to that. Bernie Radecki 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Bernie Radecki:
Your above statements once again reflect your opinion, not the facts.
  • President Bush has a lot of critics, and so did President Clinton. That proves nothing.
  • People outside of the TLRCC do support it, that statement is purely gratuitous and false on your part.
  • Many former members do not view us as a destructive cult. I'm in contact with many of them and they certainly do not share your views about us.
  • The reasons much of the press is lined up against us in my view is twofold:
    • The press is by and large anti-Catholic. The "media" in Our Lord's time was stacked up against Him too, what does that prove? It affects neither the truth nor fallacy of anyone's position. It's just the media. Remember what Christ said: "If the world hates you, know that it hated me before you."
    • The other reason is because of people like you. You certainly seem to me to be loaded down with prejudices and ignore all of the Catholic answers I have been giving to some many questions and accusations over the course of the last several months. You just ignore that what you cannot respond to from the position of Catholicism and beat the drums of ill-will all the louder.
  • There are 6 billion people in the world, the vast majority of whom are not even Christian. Don't claim the majority view as your domain. People write me privately in support, but don't want to touch this page with a ten-foot pole because of all the ugliness. Athanasius303 20:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)


Other topics

John Francis, Aren't you concerned that Schuckardt acts alone, that he is not connected with any other traditional bishops?

  • It is of some concern, but we are unwilling to water down Catholic doctrine for the sake of companionship.

Aren't you concerned that the only priest in the group is Fr. Barnes and that Schuckardt hasn't ordained any other priests for years.

  • Your information is not wholly correct. Same answer as above. I believe the international average of priest/parishioner is 10,000 to 1. Even in the most “Catholic” of countries the ratio is over 1,000 to 1. We are well served by Father and are most fortunate to have him.

[Removed for claiming Schuckardt is a brawler. Bernie Radecki 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC) ]

  • You removed a lot more than just that, you removed an entire question, perhaps because you are afraid of what the answer might be. Athanasius303 20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is taken from the Baltimore catechism: 452. What are some of the requirements that a man may receive Holy Orders worthily? That a man may receive Holy Orders worthily it is necessary: first, that he be in the state of grace and be of excellent character; second, that he have the prescribed age and learning; ......... A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher, not a drinker or a brawler, but moderate, not quarrelsome, not avaricious. (I Timothy 3:1-3) If the allegations about grave moral misconduct are true and if Schuckardt had these problems before he met Brown, it follows that Schuckardt could not even be a valid candidate for ordination to the priesthood let alone a candidate to become a bishop. Therefore, there is grave doubt that Schuckardt is a valid priest or bishop of the Catholic Church.

  • There are a lot of contingencies attached to this question so I will try to sum it up on two points.
    • It is incumbent upon the Bishop bestowing orders to review any and all candidates prior to their elevation. Bishop Brown conducted an examination Frances Schuckardt and found him to be well qualified on all counts. He also had recommendations from reputable people, including your personal friend, Fr. Fraser, who encouraged Bishop Schuckardt to receive consecration. If the voices of critics could stop a consecration, I don’t know who would ever be elevated. It is not the role of the laity, but of the Church’s hierarchy, to pass judgment as to the fitness of a candidate.
    • Even if an unfit candidate was ordained and consecrated, it has no bearing whatsoever as to the validity of the orders received. Even if your premise was correct (it’s not), your conclusion is wrong. This is something a lot of people don’t seem to get. Personal sanctity or the lack thereof has no bearing upon either the validity of the orders received or upon any God-given authority. Children are not dispensed from the 4th Commandment to honor and obey their parents if their parents commit personal sin, that would cause anarchy. You cannot ignore the flashing lights of a policy car because the officer driving that car cheated on his wife last week, that too would cause anarchy. The same goes for the Church. Refusing to honor and obey the Church’s hierarchy based upon an individual’s perceived lack of virtue in some member of the clergy is anarchy. If virtue were a prerequisite to submission to authority, the whole world would be in anarchy.

In closing, isn't it also true that your group practices "mental reservation" which in reality is a form of lying? Isn't it true that the members of the group are told that they don't have to tell the "enemy" the whole truth?

The Catholic Church teaches equivocation

  • The Catholic Church has always taught the principle of equivocation (mental reservation). In a nutshell, one may withhold the truth (not lie) from someone who does not have a right to know it. This principle goes back to apostolic times and was used by the first Catholic Himself, Jesus Christ: “Go you up to this festival day: but I go not up to this festival day, because my time is not accomplished… But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.” (Gospel of St. John 7:8-10) God of course knows all things, and He knew that He would be going. But He is also incapable of lying (“Who can neither deceive nor be deceived”), so how does one explain this? The fathers of the Catholic Church taught that since He was incapable of lying, that what He did was to equivocate. So no, it is not a form of lying at all.

Isn't it true that the enemies of Schuckardt's group are basically anyone and everyone who disagrees with Schuckardt being the only true remaining bishop of the Catholic Church? (Rose)

  • This in partisan nonsense. Most if not all of our Church members get along very well with their neighbors, fellow employees and other non-Church associates. The second greatest commandment is to “love thy neighbor” and this is something our Church has always taught. Fra. John Athanasius303 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • To Rose: Please see your User:Discussion page where I apologize for removing a part of your entry. Bernie Radecki 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Proof of Bernie Radecki’s Bias and Dishonest Editing

On March 24, an editor going by the name of Rose put this question to Fra. John:

  • ”The following is taken from the Baltimore catechism: 452. What are some of the requirements that a man may receive Holy Orders worthily? That a man may receive Holy Orders worthily it is necessary: first, that he be in the state of grace and be of excellent character; second, that he have the prescribed age and learning; ......... A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher, not a drinker or a brawler, but moderate, not quarrelsome, not avaricious. (I Timothy 3:1-3) If the allegations about grave moral misconduct are true and if Schuckardt had these problems before he met Brown, it follows that Schuckardt could not even be a valid candidate for ordination to the priesthood let alone a candidate to become a bishop. Therefore, there is grave doubt that Schuckardt is a valid priest or bishop of the Catholic Church.”

Bernie Radecki then removed the entire question and posted this misleading explanation:

  • [Removed for claiming Schuckardt is a brawler. Bernie Radecki 19:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC) ]

He then subsequently posted this message on Rose’s user talk page:

  • “Rose, I deleted a portion of your statement on the Shuckardt talk page. I am sorry. I just didn't want to give any unqualified individuals a reason to go on and on about how Schuckardt is some kind of bishop. If I thought your question would have generated a useful discussion, I would not have removed it. Even yet, I still should not have removed it. I noticed Athanasius did put it back in! I fear he is planning a response to it so I took it out again. Again, I apologize. Bernie Radecki 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)”

This kind of selective editing, which has as it purpose the withholding of any material that does not support a particular bias, is a violation of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy. “I fear he is planning a response to it [her question] so I took it out” shows how disingenuous he is in his argument for neutrality and demonstrates his real purpose here: to sway the reader into accepting his bias, rather than allowing the reader to read all the relevant material and then form their own opinions. Bernie Radecki should not be editing this article. Athanasius303 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

As you can see, I immediately apologized to Rose for what I did. I now apologize to you, Fra. John for my temporary lack of judgement. I should not have edited another editors words. Bernie Radecki 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It was very decent of you to apologize, thank you. Athanasius303 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Regarding Fra. John's view on equivocation.
  • Darn. I knew Fra. John would elucidate us all so he put back in what I took out of Rose's posting. I know I shouldn't have taken it out in the first place and I have apologized to Rose on her User page. I was thinking the ends justify the means. Or maybe the ends justify the means if the greatest good is served by lying? Or maybe if the good of the most people is served? Or maybe the good of the individual lying? Kant points out that this type of thinking results in choas. So he had this categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." Kant also stated "A human being who does not beleive himself what he tells another has even less worth than if he were a mere thing." Human communication looses its value when the lying is permitted so Kant considered truthfulness the basis of all duties. (Yes, I know Kant wasn't Catholic, but he has many respected points in the area of ethics. His views definitely are opposed to the situational ethics that some people practice.)I had often wondered why Fra. John claims certain things not to be true when there are many eyewitnesses to attest to the truth of the claims. Fra. John has given me the answer. Where the heck is that mediator? I wonder if the mediator has a right to have his quesitons answered? I know I have asked Fra. John many questions directly and he hasn't answered them. Now I know why. Bernie Radecki 22:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This is very revealing. You accuse Jesus Christ of lying and the Catholic Church of teaching error, and throw your support to Kant. Every person has a free will; you prefer to follow Immanual Kant and I prefer to follow Christ. Be that as it may, this article is not about us, it is about Bishop Schuckardt and his points of view, not yours or mine.
    • I don’t answer some of your questions because they are not real questions, but accusations in the form of a question. It is obvious to me that your interest in all of this is not is acquiring facts, but simply to do as much damage to Bishop Schuckardt and the TLRCC as possible, pure and simple. [Removal of Attac] Athanasius303 20:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John).

Bernie Radecke's Opinion of Source of Fra. John's principle of equivocation
  • Fra. John: You wrote a few paragraphs above: "The Catholic Church has always taught the principle of equivocation (mental reservation). In a nutshell, one may withhold the truth (not lie) from someone who does not have a right to know it. This principle goes back to apostolic times and was used by the first Catholic Himself, Jesus Christ". I thought your "nutshell" sounded familiar. You are actually paraphrasing Horace Mann, an American Unitarian educator held in high regard by some, who lived from 1796-1859. He wrote "You need not tell all the truth, unless to those who have a right to know it all. But let all you tell be truth." I can't believe what you wrote about me below! Where is that mediator? Bernie Radecki 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki: Again you are wrong. It is not my principle of equivocation that I stated, it is the Catholic Church’s teaching on equivocation that I stated. I am not paraphrasing Horace Mann, I paraphrasing various Catholic sources. Go to your Catholic dictionary, go to your Catholic encyclopedia, look it up for yourself and then stop mischaracterizing it as my principle. This is the same type of thing you do with the other teachings of Bishop Schuckardt and the TLRCC. You mischaracterize them and try to spin them into something they are not; but in the final analysis, you cannot rebut the Catholic sources cited in the article which supports them. Athanasius303 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

  • Your reply stings! Just "You are wrong". You could be paraphrasing Horace Mann AND various Catholic sources right? I mean, your words and Horace Mann's words look real similar to me, but let us be civil and not quibble over this minor point. Bernie Radecki 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A direct question for Fra. John
  • Please clarify an important matter for the article's sake. You have added text in the article stating that Shuckardt has never said he was a pope. Yet, on this page, 2 individuals have stated that he told them that he was. My mother-in-law told me in the early 80s that he was pope. A current sister of the CMRI order at Mt. St. Michaels told me that the mother superior of the CMRI sisters during Schuckardt's days in Spokane was telling others about Schuckardt being mystically crowmed pope. An ex-member from TLRCC in Seattle has recently informed me that she was in a large group of adults who were told by a religious of the TLRCC that Schuckardt was mytically crowned pope. And of course, as stated in the article, Denis Chicoine made this allegation in 1984. Now, Wikipedia policy regarding civility requests that I assume you are working in good faith. So I am trying to reconcile this contradiction. In light of the seriousness of this issue, I would like you to tell me if you fill this is an issue on which you can equivicate. I believe this is very relevant to the article and our continued working to improve the article. Hypothetically, if you knew that Schuckardt claimed in any way to be pope, would you tell the truth about it if asked directly? I have posted this here instead of your User page since others may be interested in your answer to this apparent contradiction. Bernie Radecki 21:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki: A zebra doesn’t change its stripes over night. Forgive my suspicion, but having dealt with you over the course of the last several months has made it very clear to me (and others) that your only interest in this article is to disparage Bishop Schuckardt and the TLRCC. I appreciate the new tone of civility, but that does not change the fact that I do not trust you. It is my opinion, and I hope I am wrong, that this new civility has something to do with the fact that a mediator will soon be taking a look at all of this and your manifest ill will is evident. (I say this is the politest why that I can while still making my point.) That is to your detriment, and I think you perhaps now recognize that. Again, I hope I am wrong. I mention this by way of explaining that I think anything I say to you or the other anti-Schuckardt editors will not be taken at face value, but rather it will be scrutinized with the sole purpose of trying to spin something out of it that would detrimental to the truth. You have established yourself (to me) not as an editor to work with for the common Wikipedia objective of writing from a neutral point of view, but one with a single-minded purpose – damage the Bishop. I have been very forthright and truthful and have answered all legitimate questions honestly, but I have no intention of exploring with people who I believe are hostile, things that are outside the scope of this article and which to not meet Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines standards. Sorry. Athanasius303 18:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

To Athanasius303-> I will leave your personal attack on me alone, but how can the topic of Schuckardt's claim to be pope be outside the scope of a biography on Schuckardt? It is critical! How can we work together on this article if you retain this attitude? I admit I am biased. Otherwise, why would I be interested in this fringe article? I think I can still write in the article with a neutral point of view. As I stated to you about a month ago, there are many legitimate, published sources that contain unflattering information on Schuckardt's church and his activities . This information belongs in the article. You fight its inclusion in the article and that is the primary reason I asked for mediation. The combination of your admitted view on equiviaction coupled with your refusal to answer a relevent question on an important article point compounded by your stand that this critical question is outside the scope of the biography moves me toward despair. Bernie Radecki 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fra John: Laurie Pipan has had valid points to share. YOU remove them as personal attacks and they are just statements. Explain yourself!!!!!

George Wagner 03/23/06

FYI about user pages

Everyone that has an account at Wikipedia has their own User page and their own Discussion page. If someone has a comment for only one person, they can click on the user name and that should redirect them to the User's account. The User's Discussion page is the proper place for others to add messages to the User - not the User's User page. It is way easier than I make it sound! Bernie Radecki 20:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I personally knew Fr. Burton J. Fraser S.J. He never "joined" Schuckardt's group. I deleted his name from the main page. It is true that Fr. Fraser did go to Coeur d'alene on several occassions to say Mass when Francis was just Brother Francis. I personally heard Fr. Fraser talk to my parents on his return from Coeur d' alene. Fr. Fraser expressed his concerns about the "extreme behavior" he saw in the group. Fr. Fraser was killed in a car accident before Francis went to Brown to be made a bishop. Like Chicoine, Fr. Fraser is dead and cannot defend his good name. I don't mind a statement on the main page saying that Fr. Fraser knew Francis Schuckardt and that he offered Mass on several occasions but it is an untrue statement to say that he joined Schuckardt. Again, Fr. Fraser was a close family friend - he would never go along with Schuckardt's beliefs especially in the break-up of marriages. Rose 3/24/06

You good mother knew Father Fraser a lot better than you did and she tells quite another story. Be that as it may, neither your version nor her version is a verifiable fact, rendering them both improper material for the article.
Removing material proper to an article without a basis in Wikipedia policy is considered vandalism. Again, please take the time to read Wikipedia policies and conduct yourself accordingly. Thanks. Athanasius303 19:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Wikipedia Policy Violations

I also have removed the counterclaim on the main page written by Fra. John on marriage and separation. I agree with others on this page that if first- hand, eye-witness testimony and statements by former members are not allowed then the section titled Counterclaims on the main page should be deleted as it is statements and perspectives of Fra. John and quoting Canon Law does nothing to prove if something is right or wrong especially if there is evidence that proves otherwise. I also do not appreciate Fra. John's statements on marriage as they imply that the women in Schuckardt's group who have been counseled to abandon or divorce their husbands is because their husbands are wife beaters and drunk. This is not true! I have verifable facts that actually prove the exact opposite - these husbands have been faithful, loving spouses and practicing Catholics. As far as Fra. John statement that The Catholic Church would never condone married women just disappearing from their husbands and children for no other reason than to follow a man who teaches that he is the only remaining bishop. Marriage is between God, a man and a woman! "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Just one more thing, Fra. John stated in his answer above on marriage " a qualified member of the clergy studied each case, presented his findings to Bishop Schuckardt," Who is this qualified member? And if he was a qualified member of the clergy, why has he never contacted my dad who loves his wife and my mom more than I have seen any one man honor, respect and love a woman? And why hasn't anyone in your group ever contacted any of my family to let us know when my mom has been sick or in the hospital. This is only common courtesy and would definitely be the Christian thing to do. Rose 3/25/06

You good mother knew Father Fraser a lot better than you did and she tells quite another story. Be that as it may, neither your version nor her version is a verifiable fact, rendering them both improper material for the article.
Removing material proper to an article without a basis in Wikipedia policy is considered vandaliam. Again, please take the time to read Wikipedia policies and conduct yourself accordingly. Thanks.
Whether you personally agree or disagree with Wikipedia policy is of no consequence. Non-verifiable material is not permitted (for a very good reason) and the material in the Counterclaims section is permitted. Again, you need to familiarize yourself with their policy – it’s their website, not yours.
My statements about drunk husbands beating up their wives is true. Denying it without even knowing who I am referring to or knowing the facts about it is pure guess work on your part – and your guess is wrong.
You ask a question. You get an answer that does not meet you existing prejudice, so you erase the question and answer and then rephrase it above in a completely erroneous manner. This is both a dishonest act and an act of vandalism. That is one of the reasons why both your questions and my answers have been reinserted, so the reader can see the actual exchange and not the edited one you want them to see. Shame on you.
Just the fact alone that your father tried to get your mother declared dead while she is well and alive, and then try to sell their jointly owned home behind her back is sufficient enough reason in and of itself. But this page is not a format to discuss your parent’s marital problems. You should do that elsewhere. We honor your good mother’s wishes regarding her family – but again – this is not what the Discussion Page is designed for and considered a misuse. Athanasius303 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

John Francis, Athanasius 303, Mr. Belzak - Thank you for helping me make my point. It is OK for you to change and delete peoples entries by saying it is against Wikipedia policy or is a personal attack. However, when another person does so, you call it vandalism and a dishonest act. My only intention of deleting anything on the original article was to clarify a statement that was not true. Fr. Fraser did not join Schuckardt. The deletions that I made on this page, I believed fell under the catergory of your deletions: ( removal of material violating Wikipedia Policy: no personal attacks, no promotion of web sites, not a format for personal, no relevant correspondence.) [removal of personal attacks] Rose March 26, 2006 PS- I love my mom. I miss her more than words can say.

Rose:
My deletions are supported by Wikipedia policy, your deletions are not. If there is some policy supporting your deletions, then please state the specific policy; if not, then you have no right in deleting legitimate material. I found it necessary to once again delete your personal attacks, which is a violation of policy. This is not a forum in which you can vent your personal ill will towards someone.
Again, please take the time to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and abide by them. You waste everyone's time by not doing so. Thank you. Athanasius303 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

I was telling my mother about this website the other day and she made a very good point. We keep going back and forth about who was [removal of personal attack] during the years of 1974-1984. Bishop Schuckardt [removal of personal attack] minds, wills, hearts and souls of his flock. The priests, religious and laity tried to live up to the standards HE preached. If there were abuses, he was the leader. When he left in 1984 the [removal...]. Those are the facts. (laurie pipan)

If the above personal attacks are verifiable facts, then insert them in the article. If they are not, then they are not facts but experiences, and not verifiable or proper to the article. The talking pages are not a back door for those who want to get around Wikipedia policies by inserting forbidden material to support a bias. Again, please familiarize yourself with the policies and abide by them. Thank you. Athanasius303 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Point well made Laurie! I have tried for months use verifiable facts to prove this point, but, Fra John sees it another way. Fra John, the deletion on Rose's last entry was uncalled for. There was nothing in her statements that were attacks. She pointed out verifiable facts and apparently you didn't like it. This has been going on for months and enough is enough. I am researching other avenues and creating a new web page.

George Wagner 26 MAR 06

The deletion of the personal attacks on Rose's last entry were in full accordance with Wikipedia's policies; something you either refuse to read or to abide by, because this is probably about the sixth time I have had to ask you to read and follow these policies, and still you do not. Athanasius303 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Fra John: Wouldn't you say that this article is a platform for you to express your views and tell your side of the events? It seems impossible to add our verifiable facts because you discredit them as no-verifiable and call us vandals for editing the 'fat' from the article. There are so many irregularities in the article that if tried to correct them you would change it back. One comes t mind, You refer to Fr. Louis Kerfoot during the trial as MR. KERFOOT. He was Fr. Louis at the time and should be refered to as such. The sad reality is that we will never agree to agree on anything. Enough for tonight.

George Wagner 26 MAR 06

Plea for Application of Wikipedia Policy

George Wagner:
Your refusal to either read or adhere to Wikipedia policies is the continued source of erroneous statements you make, like the one above. It is pointless to continue to argue these points with you because I apply Wikipedia's definition as to what constitutes a verifiable fact, and you and some others disregard that definition and substitute your own in place of it. There is no justification for that. Athanasius303 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Fra John: It seems like any time someone writes a statement or a fact you sit behind Wiki policy and use it to delete credible information. It also seems everything is a personal attack. I'm going to give the process of mediation a chance and then edit the article accordingly.

You mention that you are (a part of) the Catholic Church, and you quote her teachings. My question is in regards to the broken up marriages. You state that the cases were handled by church authorities and that the husbands were drunkards and beat thier wives. Was this the case for all the marriages, because I personally know of MANY marriages that were ended and that was not the reason. The reason I ask is because you make it sound like this is or was the main cause. Next, these church authorities, were they trained by professors of Moral Theology and Cannon Law? The relevence to this is that the Catholic Church has certain guidelines to follow in marriage cases and I wonder if they were followed. Secondly, you clearly do not belong to the Catholic Church but yet you use her teachings as sources. Very Confusing.

If I wanted I could easily write an article using the knowledge (about what happened) and cite church teaching (just as you do) and the bible to support it. If I did that would you support it? I honestly do not see verifiable facts in your writing, just opinions supporting your point of view cited with church teaching and the bible. Other than the court case, I fail to see any real support.

George Wagner 27 MAR 06

George Wagner:
As I stated above, it is fruitless to argue with you because you play by your own rules and apply your own definitions. I think I have exercised a lot of forbearance in your regard, but it is past time that you either abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines or get out of Wikipedia altogether. Editors can be banned for their refusal to learn or adhere to Wikipedia’s policies; so I am giving you fair warning. You bloat and clog this page to the detriment of others because of your inability or unwillingness to comply with the policies and guidelines, and the next time it happens I will turn you in to be banned. So I make one last plea – please read and apply the appropriate policies and guidelines. Thanks. Athanasius303 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)
I never said all the marriages in question were cases of spousal abuse. You read that into it on your own, and this brings up a larger issue. You do this frequently. You need to learn how not to read your personal prejudices into the statements of others. It is wholly unproductive of any good and burns up time and space that could be better dedicated to something of substance. Wikipedia provides a tutorial that I think would be very benefical for you to read. Please check it out. The rest of your questions have already been address either in the Article or in these talk pages - please refer to them for your answers. After having done it, if you feel more explanation is warranted, I will then try to explain it further. Athanasius303 19:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Answers for Athanasius303

Fra John. I have taken adequate time today to review the policies of wikipedia.

1) Verifiable statements are anything from reputable writings including media. They want us to write in our own words. We are not here to verify whether the article or work is true, but to use it as a basis to write an article. According to the policy, an individual needs sufficien verifiable facts to sustain a spot in Wikipedia. The only verifiable sources are those written against Schuckardt(media reports). Your reign of Mary or whatever it is you use is not sufficient because it is not accessable. You are in clear violation of this because your proof is insufficient and it adds unecessary fat to the article.

2) Personal attacks are those directed toward an individual. "Schuckardt is the leader of a desstuctive cult," is simply a statement not an attack. Most of the edits you make are not personal attacks but rather statements. Again you are in clear violation of this point.

3) This one I'll give you, this is not a personal forum, although, we express valid points that you consider personal attacks. And, you don't give straight answers.

4) NPOV or neutral point of view, deals with conflicting points of view. We clearly have this in the article. It also states that if someone is directly involved with an article subject, he or she SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE. The reason being is that they will be bias. You are directly involved with Schuckardt and you clearly state that you admire him as an individual. You are in violation of this policy. We are not because we have nothing to do with him and this article is only about him. Don't preach to me about being in violation of wiki policy, because I see your bias in using wikipedia as a platform to push your group's point of view. The truth of the matter is that Schuckardt is a contoversial subject and the facts are this(for the last time):

1) He started a group in defiance of Vatican Council II
2) He received an illicit Ordination and Consecration from the Old Catholic lineage
3) He imposed stringent rules on the faithful
4) He was using massive amounts of perscription drugs
5) He was denounced for being fanatical and for homosexuality
6) He fled Washington
7) He operated his organization in different States and settled in the Seattle area.
8) He continues to impose these fanatical rules and control while being elusive

Fra these are not personal attacks, but the facts whether you agree or not. And I can provide the evidence. The Counterclaims section and Aryan Nations section have NO merit in the article and should be removed. You have yet to show me the evidence. As for what I have written, there are no personal attacks and if you remove one word you will be in violation.

George Wagner 28 MAR 06


George Wagner:
Continue to read Wikipedia and you will see that Bishop Schuckardt passed all criteria for have an article about him.
Accusatory comments are personal attacks (read Wikipedia policy again). Simply because some media outlets have given voice to his detractors by accusing him of heading a “destructive cult” does not mean that it is a verifiable fact that he is heading a destructive cult. What is verifiable is that he has been accused of being a cult leader, not that he is one. There is a big difference - ask any lawyer or judge.
That I am biased in his favor I have made clear from day one. That fact that you are biased, if not admitted, is clear from your statements. Having a bias is not a disqualification for editing Wikipedia. I’m sure the majority of the articles written were done so by someone having a bias; who would write something they are ambivalent about? What Wikipedia forbids is to write in violation of their Neutral Point of View Policy. Wikipedia’s policies regarding religion and controversial people clearly give me a voice in this article. You state that Wikipdia “states that if someone is directly involved with an article subject, he or she SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE.” I cannot find this statement anywhere. If you could direct me to it I would like to look into it.
The list of “facts” you stated are for the most part not facts, but subjective judgments and opinions by you and others. To state your opinion as a fact, especially when it is hurtful to the reputation of someone, is a personal attack and proper material for removal. There is no policy supporting the airing of opinions on this site, especially negative opinions which have as their motive or end result the damage to someone’s reputation.
I’ve argued ad nauseam the Aryan Nations subject. Be patient and allow the mediator to weigh in. The court records of sworn testimony by a Sheriff’s Deputy constitutes a verifiable fact.

Athanasius303 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Fra, It's under, "Wikipedia is Not a Soap Box" and number 2 of that catagory.

George Wagner 29 MAR 06

Removal of first hand accounts on the talk page as being personal attacks.

As I stated on the talk page a few weeks ago, supported by quotations taken from Wikipedia policy/guidelines, an eyewitness account regarding an offence Schuckardt is accused of is not a personal attack! It shouldn't go into the article unless it has been published in a reputable source, but it may have relevance on the talk page to bring clarity to an issue. A personal attack according to Wikipedia guidelines is when someone says something nasty about another contributor. For instance, when Fra. John wrote that I am a follower of Kant and he is a follower of Christ. Whereas for Laurie Pipan to relate how Schuckardt talked to her regarding his being a pope, that is not a personal attack in any shape and should not have been removed. Now, it may be improper for individuals to make charges against Schuckardt on the talk page for some other reason, but it certainly is not a personal attack under Wikipedia guidelines! That said, let's realize it does not aid the article to bring up things on this talk page that were soley hearsay. For instance, George Wagner's contention that Schuckardt used massive amount of drugs does not aid the article unless there is some proof of this. Now if George Wagner wrote the perscriptions, delivered the drugs, was a witness to Schuckardt using the drugs, then in that case, it could be placed in the talk page to clarify the issue. Perhaps with the knowledge that this activity was occuring, someone might be led to a reputable source that either proves or disproves the issue. I commend Fra. John for at least now bracketing his deletions of other's personal eyewitness input, but I still contend it is improper for him to be doing so on the grounds of a personal attack. This is one of the points that is in for mediation. I am sure all would agree that toning down the commentary would be beneficial. If another editor would like to discuss this, perhaps my user page would be more appropriate venue. Bernie Radecki 07:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bernie Radecki:
I don’t know what you quoted a few weeks ago that supports the proposition you state above. The only quote I can find from you that even resembles what you refer to is this one given by you: “Personal attacks are the parts of a comment which can be considered personally offensive and which have no relevant factual content.” (Wikipedia policy on Remove Personal Attacks)
This is no way supports any deviation from Wikipedia’s policies regarding verifiability and no original research. To my mind, it rather supports my conduct in removing personal attacks and other non-relevant material which seem to have no purpose other than to cast Bishop Schuckardt in a negative way. Athanasius303 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)
To Athanasius303-> Look at what I posted 3/06/06 under the section "Reply to Fra. John's insistence on keeping the footnote regarding excommunication and hell in place". What is happening is a lot of lawyering about what is or is not Wikipedia policy. There is a difference between what is proper for the article and what is proper for the talk page. Bernie Radecki 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of Article Talk Pages

Concerning the proper use of Wikipedia Talk Pages, please note:

  • “Article talk pages are used to discuss changes to the particular article.”
  • “[T]he purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.”
  • Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it’s an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject.”

This is the purpose of the article talk pages. Nowhere in the four corners of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines can be found the anti-Schuckardt people’s rationale for including material not relevant to the article. If it’s there and I missed it, please direct me to it. If it’s not there, then it’s material that is not proper to the article and removable according to Wikipedia policy.

Regarding all of the hubbub about my removing portions of these talk pages which I believe violate Wikipedia policy: in addition to their policy of no personal attacks, Wikipedia also provides to editors the right to remove material not in keeping with their policies under various other contingencies:

  • Under libel and defamation: “Potentially libelous or defamatory statements not CITED and SOURCED to verifiable sources should be removed.” (Emphasis in original)
  • Under Wikipedia Etiquette: “[T]o show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.”
  • Under civility: “Strike offensive words… remove offensive comments on talk pages…”

There are more policies and guidelines than these just cited, but time does not permit me to post them right now. I believe all of these policies support me in my conduct of extracting personal attacks and the few other pieces that I felt necessary to remove due to some other violation.

Regarding the anti-Schuckardt group deleting questions and answers not in keeping with what I firmly believe is their own bias:

  • Under vandalism: “Deleting the comments of other users from the article Talk page, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate…”

I am thoroughly convinced that the Radeckis, Wagner, Pipan, Rose,… have a single purpose in editing this article and this talk page: to damage Bishop Schuckardt as much as possible. I believe any objective reader of these pages would come to the same conclusion. Since they have not been able to achieve this with any notable success in the article, they appear to me to be trying to accomplish this task in these talk pages under the shadow of sophistry. This kind of conduct should not be tolerated and they should cite what policies support this kind of behavior. If they are unable to cite any such policies, then I would hope that they would, on their own, cease doing it.

One final thing, since Bernie Radecki seems to have convinced the other anti-Schuckardt editors to refrain from editing the article until mediation has had a chance to work, and since the purpose of the article talk pages is to discuss changes to the article, I don’t see any purpose for anyone adding further comments on this page that does not deal directly with the mediation process. These talk pages seem to have taken on a life of its own! Can we reach consensus on that? Is there someone out there who would not benefit from a cool down period? I know I would. Thank you. Athanasius303 19:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

I am for a complete stoppage of any additions to the article or the talk page. I do not think the lawyering regarding Wikipedia policy is going to improve peoples attitudes since there is a plainly divergent view on fundamental issues. I am stopping until an arbitrator helps. Bernie Radecki 22:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To Fra John: As of now I am not going to add anything to the article or the talk page. I simply do not have the time. I think the article does not meet an encyclopedia format, and, I do not agree with your interperatation of the wiki policies. This I feel has led to months of issues and headaches. There is no balance, it is all partisan. Most importantly, you claim that all of us are anti Schuckardt, well, look at it from our view. You live with him and are a part of it. We see it from a different view. You won't let us even try. So I am done for now. I will wait for intervention and resume at that point.

George Wagner

Deo Gratias! Athanasius303 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

When is the mediation going to take place? The length of time it is taking is unsat. I have strong objections to the content in this article and want it corrected ASAP. George Wagner12 Apr 06

I have talked to the coordinator of the arbitration cabal about a week ago and he apologized for the delay. He mentioned at that time that he may pick up the case himself. I left him a reminder yesterday, but have not heard back. At least the warning is on the article. In the meantime, waiting seems to be the only option to me becasue of the varioius disagreements on editing the article. Bernie Radecki 01:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Above I am accused of "having a single purpose in editing this article... to damage Bishop Schuckardt as much as possible". I believe you have to read someone's mind to know their intent. I bear no ill will towards Bishop Schuckardt. I do not wish to damage him. In fact I take offense at being called "anti-Schuckardt". When I first read the article and talk-page I saw that some facts were left out and that the truth was distorted. I used my personal experiences to try to set the record straight. You can't leave out essential facts when you write about the "Crusaders of the Most Holy Rosary" and what happened to them between 1974 and 1984. The truth of the matter is, under Bishop Schuckardt's leadership, his followers went off the deep end - I won't go into any particulars because they would be edited out. If you write an article about Bishop Schuckardt, you can not exclude what he taught. When I quoted the teachings of Bishop Schuckardt from the pulpit, they were edited out. Again, I harbor no evil intentions. But the truth must be told. (Laurie Pipan) 14 April 2006

For myself, I am indifferent to Schuckardt and could care less what he does with himself. I would like to provide information to protect those who might have the misfortune of coming into contact with his church so they can read that he has been repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church, that he formed his own church in Couer dÁlene/Spokane in the late 60s to mid-80s which was been exposed in the media as a destructive cult, and that he continues today in the Seattle area to the extent that he has been singled out once again by the media due to the practices of his little group. The article will never be able to convey the personal damage that he did to former members of his church with his repressive and singular interpretation of Catholicism, but there is plenty of published material that can be added to the article that should suffice to warn others of his record. Bernie Radecki 04:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A recent Wikipedia guideline

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Self-promotion: The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable." As Francis Schuckardt is Athanasius303's religious superior, this gives the appearance of being a conflict of interest.

Mediation

Hello. I've been assigned to mediate the supernumerary disagreements that have taken place here. Please visit the mediation page [1] with any comments on the issue. I'll try to help find a consensus on the wording and material included in this article. All opinions are welcome. If you have any issues to air, please post them on the aforementioned mediation page. Danny Pi 22:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding using the standard meaning of 'Catholic Church'

I have made a minor modification to the article implementing the mediator's suggestion regarding using the term 'Catholic Church' to mean the commonly held meaning of the current church centered in Rome under Pope Benedict XVI and the hierarchy in union with him. Bernie Radecki 02:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made a second very minor modification to the article. I have moved some sentances to make the order of the article more chronological. I changed very little actual content and instead just moved sentances about a certain event to another part of the article to retain the flow of the article based on time. It might look like there was a substantial change, but if you look at the history, you will see that I took care to maintain content and only sought to improve the readability of the article. Basically, it was a cut and paste to get the subject matter of certain events in the right place. I am sure all will agree that this is an improvement. Bernie Radecki 03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a post on the mediation page that time was tight for me right now and that my silence did not constitute consent. The objective here is to reach consensus with the help of the mediator, not to implement his suggestions without the other side having an opportunity to weigh in. Athanasius303 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Both the changes were minor and the second one was not related to an area of contention and I beleive it greatly improves readability. I am reverting back so that improvement is not lost. 'Catholic Church' can always be replaced with another phrase at a later date if that is what mediation determines is proper. Your point of not editing now is well taken, but the benefit of my second edit justifies my revert. Bernie Radecki 16:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The changes are related to areas of contention. Please see mediation talk pages for further debate. Athanasius303 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Only the change regarding the term 'Catholic Church' is an area of contention and those changes were very minor. This is a minor thing. As I stated today on the mediation page, out of courtesy, I will not edit further; but we both need to show a little flexibility. Bernie Radecki 18:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fra. John’s editing opponents – just who are they?

Wagner, Radecki and others have been seeking to have me banned from editing this article on the grounds of personal involvement. I have purposely tried to keep out of the fray of this issue because I thought it would degenerate into personal attacks or some other useless distraction. But as it appears that they are not willing to let it go, I will now address it.

On the very top of the Discussion page, I identified myself so everyone would know who I am and where I am coming from. My opponents here have yet to do that regarding themselves, so I will do it for them.

Bernie Radecki, Frances Radecki, George Wagner, Laurie Pipan and Rose Offenhauer are all former members of the TLRCC under Bishop Schuckardt. The three women are all ex-Nuns of the Congregation founded by Bishop Schuckardt. All of them at one time adhered to the very beliefs this article is expounding about Bishop Schuckardt, but sided with Chicoine in 1984 and have since adopted a new set of beliefs. Most, if not all of them, currently belong to the Church established by Chicoine in 1984.

This puts them in a neutrality dilemma, because to justify their current stance, they have to justify siding with Chicoine in 1984. Demonizing and denigrating Bishop Schuckardt gives their position credibility; demonstrating the reasonableness of Bishop Schuckardt’s position calls into question the justification for Chicoine’s revolt and erodes the credibility of their position. They are not neutral. They have a personal stack in all of this.

Furthermore, I believe their actions demonstrate their personal involvement; a simple read of the article’s Talk Pages should convince any objective person to the truth of this. Here’s an example of how partisan at least one of them is. On 5/12/03, George Wagner sent an email to one of our clerics, which said in part: “I will stop at nothing to see you crumble because your very existence is mocking God and tarnishing the Traditional movement.” Sounds like personal involvement to me.

Why is any of this relevant? Because they want to remove my input on the grounds of personal involvement. But because they themselves are personally involved, removing my input would simply allow their form of partisanship to win the day, and that would do violence to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. A NPOV is better achieved by opposing parties working out their differences, rather than by removing an opposing party from one side only and allowing the other side free reign to edit at will. Athanasius303 05:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


OK Schuckardt Cronies I've had enough. Bernie adeded verifiable, sourced additions to the article and you delete them because the truth hurts. If this continues I will delete the whole article!!! George Wagner

I have not removed your input and I know that you are not going to be banned! Read the article before you edit! I have added third party, citable documented comentary to the article. I have flagged the areas in which you write what Schuckardt beleives without any citable source. How is the public to know that this is what Schuckardt believes! What if I started writing what Schuckardt beleives! It would be choas. In what I added, I also added material written by Fr. Alphonsus Barnes. I have the letters of both Fr. Chicoine and Fr. Alphonsus. By citing the extant documents themselves, a NPOV is kept. In all these months, I do not recall you adding anything documenting the other sides point of view. Yet, I have done this repeatedly. Due to the fact that this is a controversial article, the only way to proceed is to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines of ensuring a third party opionion by citing sources. This I have done. In all decency, you must not delete these additions. Surely you can see that additions, such as what the Roman Catholic bishop of Spokane wrote about Francis Schuckardt are relevent! Do not just yank this material out! Please do go through the article and find third party material that supports your statements of what Schuckardt beleives. Surely he has written something on this topic so that you do not have to create first person dialogue as to what he believes. My additions are in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and DanielPi's input. DanielPi is probably not coming back, but I do think that we both learned that the only way to proceed is to have documetatrion backing up the material in the article. I have docuentation for my additions. I welcome you to provide the same. I will raise the flag with the mediation committee that we have appeared to lose our mediator, but let us show a little restraint. Bernie Radecki 21:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for binding arbitration

The mediator got agreement from us not to edit the article until consensus was reached. You have since violated that agreement (I know, none-binding) four times. You requested mediation and then you killed it because it was not necessarily going your way. Be that as it may, here are the applicable guidelines for why the material you added was properly deleted and why the material about Bishop Schuckardt is properly there.

This is a biography, about a controversial living person, with necessarily heavy religious overtones. Wikipedia set policies and guidelines to regulate all these of these issues. It is my belief that I am in conformity with these policies and that you are not.

A biography can use as source material the person’s personal website. I am sure you must be aware of the Bishop’s site and have probably read it. But whether you have or not is immaterial. A good deal of the material in this article is derived from that site and therefore properly sourced.

All three sections (biographies, controversial articles and religion) state that the biographical article should express the views, opinions, … of the subject. You have for some time now been complaining about this article representing a minority view. What do you think a biography is? Of course it represents a minority view, a view of one. That’s what biographies are all about and these views are proper here.

Biography guidelines also state that the article is about the subject, not his critics. You are without question a critic of the Bishop and clearly want to turn this article into something that represents your personal antagonistic bias. You add nothing new, you just keep adding more and more of something that the article already states. The critics view should not predominate a biography.

The material you added was not properly sourced. The burden lies on you to source your edits with proper references, especially when the material is detrimental to someone’s reputation. A loose letter written by someone, if challenged, does not stand up to scrutiny.

I say this not to attack, but to state the case. I find you to be disingenuous. What you say on these talk pages and what you do are two different things. You are agenda driven and so am I, but with this difference: My editing is not aimed at ruining someone’s reputation, your editing is and that in necessarily POV and not what an encyclopedia is all about. An encyclopedia is not a tabloid or a forum for people to peddle their bias. I would sincerely like to work to create consensus, but despite your claims that you would like to do the same, I don’t believe you will. It seems to me that binding arbitration is the only solution here. Athanasius303 05:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

Stop removing my sourced material! Stop trying to make the article an autobiography. I have left a note with the chair of the mediation committee that we appear to have lost our mediator. Perhaps we will get another one. I think it is critical to get a third party view here one way or another. If you want to ask for binding arbitration, that would be ok with me. The major point we do not agree on is what a biography is and the use of independent, third party sources. You seem to want the article to be an autobiography and you do not even provide sources for what Schuckardt believes! For all the public knows, you could be making things up. What you are adding is original research. This is where we do need an arbitrator. I like the website you made. That is the place for original research in my opinion. You should not be adding more original research here! You definitely should not delete my sourced material. If you would like to dialogue about it, that is welcome; but don't just cut it out! You leave me no choice but to revert. We could do this until a third party input is once again available: you don't delete my sourced material and I won't delete your original research (which is terribly out of place). Bernie Radecki 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have reverted back so my improperly deleted material is once again in place. I looked at what you added and out of courtesiy I was going to paste it back in but I fear the references would not match up and I might not get it the way you want. You are of course welcome to paste it back in and get it formatted the way you want, but don't remove my material. Once again we have a very significant disagreement. You see my third party, sourced material as improper for a biography. I see you have added a lot of material and provide no source whatsoever documenting it as something Schuckardt taught in the 1980s. No sense getting into an argument about Wikipedia policy with you since we've been down that road and it is futile without outside guidance. Hopefully, we can get some of that soon. I must say that I am as exasperated with you as you appear to be with me. I have put requests on both the mediation chair and deputy chair talk pages. If a mediator weighed in on a few policy type issues, such as the use of third party material and how much of the biography should be in the subjects own point of view, we may be able to make progress. The caseload for the mediators is lighter than it was previously. However, if you want to go to arbitration, no one can stop you. Bernie Radecki 14:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Where to start? Let’s start by not mudding the waters by misrepresentations. To call this article autobiographical is ridiculous and unsubstantiated. No person in his right mind would write and publish such defamatory statements about themselves. This article is biographical, not autobiographical; mislabeling it does nothing to further the process at reaching consensus and a NPOV.
So far you have violated the mediator’s recommendation of not editing in any fashion that might inflame another editor. You have unilaterally done that 4 times before I gave up and started to edit as well. My question to Radecki is this: what is the purpose of further mediation if you have no intention to give the process a chance? If you are going to do your own thing regardless of the mediator’s input, then I don’t see how further mediation is going to be a benefit.
The info you added fails to meet Wikipedia citing sources guidelines. Some phantom letters not available to the general public having essentially only you for their authenticity, is of course is not acceptable. Wikipedia places the burden of proving verifiable sources upon the shoulders of the editor making the addition. Furthermore, there is the question of relevance once again. We raised that question on the mediation page, but have not yet received any input from the mediator. Nevertheless, Wikipedia policy condemns the notion that an autobiographical article should focus on the critics, and not the subject. Since your additions really don’t add anything new, but simply give more verbiage to your undeniable bias, I don’t believe they belong in this article.
Regarding removing the material I added, you have once again violated Wikipedia policy in doing so. I would be good for you to do your homework before you just recklessly removing anything that does not fit into your own prejudices. The website of the subject of an autobiography is a valid source. You should not be removing material that Bishop Schuckardt’s website supports.
You really need to go elsewhere to peddle your bias. Any review of the talk pages clearly reveals that your sole object here is to trash the Bishop and you’ve been trying every policy/guideline loophole possible to obtain that objective. Encyclopedias are not for that purpose. They are designed to report facts and allow the reader to form their own opinions. (Fra. John)

After you removed my well sourced additions, you added new material. As I stated, I would have left your new material alone, but to add my well-sourced material back in and get your new material formated correctly was problematic. I have expended a good amount of energy to obtain newspaper articles and correspondence that was widely circulated over 20 years ago. Once again, I should be commended. NPOV relies on cited, third party material. I have the letters. I have the newspaper articles. Even the newspaper articles mention the letters. Through much personal effort, I have obtained the past and document it here. What is more, I have more. As I wrote three months ago, it is difficult to find material that speaks favorably of Schuckardt, but the opposite is not true. Bernie Radecki 06:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-compliance with policy/guidelines

Wikipedia’s verifiability policy states: “Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn’t mean Wikipedia is the right place to publish it.” Wikipedia’s biography guidelines state: “Any negative material about a living person that is not sourced to a reliable publication should be removed both from the article and the talk page.”
Much of what Radecki added is not only not sourced to a reliable publication, but it isn’t sourced at all. He makes unsubstantiated claims about some “letters,” as his source; this wouldn’t even meet muster with a tabloid, let alone an encyclopedia. That only leaves some newspaper extracts; are these legitimately in this article? I don’t believe they are based upon Wikipedia policy and the fact that some of these are 30 years old, if they are even legitimate.
Wikipedia’s biography guidelines states: “In borderline cases, the rule of thumb is to ‘do no harm.’ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalists, or to be the primary vehicle for the spreading of titillating claims about people’s lives.” It further states: “[Critics] views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject’s notability, is based upon reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critic’s material.” “The focus of a biographical article should be about the subject, not their critics.” Radecki’s additions do not meet these standards and therefore are rightly excluded from this article.
I think a clear indication of just how bias he is, is that much of negative material he added cannot even be directly traced to Bishop Schuckardt. His obvious intent is to disparage the Bishop by the law of association. Wikipedia’s verifiability policy states: “Verifiability requires direct evidence which specifically identifies a person or organization as having engaged in a negative behavior. This is especially true of claims which infer information from membership of an organization and from activities of others associated with that organization.” Again, I think Radecki should take his POV bias elsewhere and stop using Wikipedia to advocate this bias.
Lastly, this bias has resulted in conduct that is considered to be vandalism. The removal of the external links to the Bishop’s personal website and the Catholic Encyclopedia are unwarranted and again show how he wants this article to reflect his own prejudical views. Athanasius303 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Once again you have wantonly deleted third party, sourced material and then added your own, unsourced material. I would leave your unsourced material if it were easy to put the other material back. So if you want to add your material, stop wantonly deleting mine. Let DanielPi weigh in. I am not going to cite here a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines for you. I think everyone knows the three pillars that Wikipedia stands on. You need to bring your material up to the standard I am following. You add material saying that Schuckardt thought this and Schuckardt felt that, but you give no proof of it. Then you complain of my use of newspaper articles because they are old? I am referencing things that happened 20 or 30 years ago, of course they are old!! And the letters. This may confuse DanielPi so I'll elucidate for his benefit. It was not uncommon during the 70s and 80s for people who left Schuckardt's church to get a hold of the church's mailing list and send a letter stating their position to all the people on it. The letter of Chicoine and the letter of Barnes were two such letters that were mailed to hundreds of addresses in the Coeur d'Alene, Idaho and Spokane, Washington areas. These were public, open letters detailing the author's point of view. Portions of these letters appear in the newspaper articles and were also used in one or more of the Alientation of Affection lawsuits brought against Schuckardt's church. This is the practice you need to utilize when you add material: get something that is published on Schuckardt detailing his beliefs. I have added many direct quotations from Schuckardt. (The removal of the reference to the Catholic encyclopedia was the one that I mentioned in the mediation page where you just cite the entire encyclopedia to justify a sentence that really makes no sense.) Bernie Radecki 13:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Fra John: You claim to not defaming someones name? Well read the article ! You are destroying a good mans name, Father Denis, and elevating your bishop. The letters Bernie is referencing will be published on my web site. You are beig severely bias in you editintg. You simply want it your way. You can't prove any allegations against Father Denis other than your point of view, and I know yo can't. So either prove your case or I will remove it. George Wagner 13 May 06

The “three pillars” are abridged policies of Wikipedia. They do not trump the more detailed policies expounded by Wikipedia. We don’t live in a one-size-fits-all world and neither can something as massive as Wikipedia be reduced into a one-size-fits-all encyclopedia.
Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability states: “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit.” It’s not for you to post an edit in dispute and then claim the right to keep it posted until proven otherwise. The exact opposite is the case. Disputed postings are to be taken to the talk pages for resolution. I dispute your additions and we have a mediator once again. The talk pages are the proper place for this discussion and I will continue to remove this material until you follow policy guidelines; I do this per policy guidelines.
The material I added and revert after you delete it IS sourced. Again, you should not be recklessly removing material that opposes you point of view. Wikipedia’s verifiability policy allows “self-published sources in articles about themselves.” It specifically mentions a subject’s personal website as one such source. The footnotes and the Bishop’s website fulfill this source criterion, thereby making these materials proper to the article.
In addition to the material being properly sourced, it is also relevant. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy states: “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.” This is exactly what my recent additions do.
The Arbitration Committee recently ruled: “[I]n favor of showing mercy to the subjects of biographies…” Wikipedia’s biography section says: “Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs, or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view.” I believe this is exactly what you are doing by giving undue weight and attention to the negative material about Bishop Schuckardt; it does not belong here.
The reason I have gone through the trouble to quote of all these policies and guidelines is because Wikipedia, like any organization of considerable size, must be regulated by rules and laws, and the rules and laws must be taken as a whole, because the arbitrary applications of certain ones only will defeat the very purpose of an encyclopedia. I believe these policies and guidelines are the basis which all editors here must work from, otherwise we will be hopeless deadlocked and will never reach consensus.
I am copying these recent additions to the talk page to the mediation talk page because I think that is a more appropriate spot for them now that the mediator is back. Athanasius303 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

OK. I have reverted the article to get my well documented material back in. I have also pasted back in the over 2000 words of original research that you put in. So now we both have something to object to. Be reasonable and stop reverting! Give the mediator a chance or go to arbitration, but stop reverting. It is senseless for you to remove my material and it is equally senseless for me to remove your material. I would value a thrid party view on this. Bernie Radecki 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose to eliminate the Arian Nations part because it is not relevant and provides an avenue for false assumptions. I will give five days on this subject. If concrete evidence that Butler and his boys were INVITED and a sourced (not first hand) document proving that BFS fled for fear of his life, I will make the appropriate correction. 5 days..... George Wagner 13 May 06

I've stated the policies and guidelines whereby I removed your additions, so I don't know why we have to go around and around on this issue. I will state it again in case it didn't register for some reason: "Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion..." - Wikipedia: Citing Sources. Your edits are vigorously disputed and I am following proper procedure by removing them from the article. Athanasius303 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (Fra. John)

To Athanasius: You've read this I assume regarding Verifiability "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Even though your 2000 word new section is unsourced, original research, I have not removed it. I show restraint. My additions are sourced. The Verifiability website goes on to state "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." Also "If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." No one can claim the Spokesman Review is unreliable. You dispute my edit because you don't like the content. Bernie Radecki 02:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I am talking to myself... Forget the five days You can't prove it.

George Wagner 14 May 06

Bernie: Excellent editions! I guess I won't have to remove the part on Arian Nations, just the title. It's just a stab in the dark for them to imply that they were involved. Anyway keep up the good research.

George Wagner 14 May 06

My apologies to Savidan, an anonymous editor vandalized the article prior to your additions. If I had more time now, I would put your stuff back in. We have been having some difficulty with reverting. The hope is some mediation or arbitration will help out. Bernie Radecki 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

On March 15, I requested help from the mediation cabal on a number of points. After two months had passed, Athanasius303 and myself had made very little progress using the collaborative approach of mediation under the guidance of DanielPi. The root of the problem, as I see it, is that the two of us have opposing viewpoints on Wikipedia policy. I was hoping that mediation could solve this core dispute, but it could not. I think the only lasting result we had was to remove 1 footnote. It is my hope that taking this article to arbitration will result in a binding decision in the areas of NPOV, Verifiability, No Orignal Research, and how these policies dovetail with the guidelines for articles about living persons.

Today, I am reverting back to a version of the article that contains segments both Athanasius303 and myself object to. Immediately, I am going to modify portions of my sections that Athanasius303 objects to and which DanielPi also said were too long. I will then leave the article alone for a day in case Athanasius303 or anyone else would like to make any changes to the article before I put in the request for arbitration. I would caution against any large scale changes. I would also caution against reckless modifications to my entries as they do comply with Wikipedia policy as I see it. In an effort to avert a revert war, I would suggest individuals only edit their own additions instead of editing another party's additions. I know it may be difficult to allow portions to remain that you ardently oppose. As I see it, the fact that the article contains material that both sides detests should make the decision of the arbitration committee easier. Bernie Radecki 15:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Radecki's modifications are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Since they are damaging to the reputation of someone and many of them are from very questionable sources, policy allows the removal of them, which is what I have done. The safest course here is to take these issues of contention to Arbitration and let them come to a decision - let us not presume to made decisions for them and post in advance of their decisions. This is particularly true because Radecki has demonstrated his only interest in this article is to damage Bishop Schuckardt and his postings to just that, not to mention that many of them are outright false. Athanasius303 17:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start a meaningless revert war!. This version is the one that both of us detest. I know you do not accept my independent, third party citations. That is one of the two policy disputes that caused me to ask for arbitration. Leave the article as is so it will allow the arbitration committee to just view the article in order to make a decision. Remember, your request for mediation was rejected | Fra. John's request for mediation in early February. Months followed with no good results. In the reguest for arbitration, I list the sections in the main dispute. This wll make it so there is no need to wade through talk pages. I recommend not twarting the chance of getting arbitration acepted. Bernie Radecki 20:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to arbitration page

Here is the link to the arbitration case. | Schuckardt Arbitration Currently, myself and Athanasius303 are the only parties listed as we are the only ones with Wikipedia accounts. Perhaps this will make the committee's task easier. Let us hope that they accept the case. I hope all are agreed that editing the article now is ill advised. Bernie Radecki 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am removing sections as they don't have adequate sources to justify their presence in the article.

George Wagner 19 May 06

I do not know who the user is who reverted out your modifications, but perhaps you should wait with any editing until the arbitration committee weighs in. it is my hope that they will clarify issues for us and based on that, work on the article can progress. Bernie Radecki 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is with great joy that I see a fourth arbitrator has agreed to accept this article for arbitration.! Bernie Radecki 02:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Nations

I have never thought highly of the tenuous link between the Aryan Nations possibly being seen on MSM property and Schuckardt fleeing for his life out of fear. Nowhere is there confimration that any member of the Aryan Nations was invited or welcomed at MSM. (I always thought the St. Konrad's Youth Brigade was Schuckardt's idea since it bore his name.) I know George Wagner objects to the way the article implies a connection and that he often attempts to at least get the name 'Aryan Nations' out of the title as it is highly contentious. I see a new editor has deleted some material in that part of the article. It may be warranted, but I wouldn't get carried away. Improving the readability of the article is always welcomed of course. Oh, another issue: I don't like the link 'www.rougebishop' being in the article at this time since it is currently undeveloped.

I see Athanasius303 and Diligens are doing some reverting. Maybe some discussion is in order. Athanasius303, Are you implying that Schuckardt had reason to fear bodily harm from members of the Aryan Nations? It sure reads to me that you are stating that Schuckardt fled Spokane because of this. It seems the only basis for this is that during a court proceding, an evasive answer was given to a question about the Arayan Nations being present as Mount St. Michaels. As I wrote before, there is still no concrete evidence 1. that they were there 2. that they were invited there or 3. that they would have reason to harm Schuckardt. Are you contending that they did have a reason to harm Schuckardt? Are you contending that they were at Mt. Saint Michaels to tell others how to harm Schuckardt? A little expalnation of your thought process is in order instead of just reverting. The linkage of two unrelated issues: Aryan Nations possibly at MSM and Schuckardt fleeing seems reason enough to delete your contention. I know that there is a reputable published source that states that you yourself were armed at the Schuckardt mansion during the time Schuckardt was vacating his mansion, but no mention whatsoever was made of the Aryan Nations. Bernie Radecki 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not considered verifiable evidence to have a person under oath say something that someone else told him. It is what is called "hearsay evidence". Witnesses themselves must testify. Also, I think it is a dirty innuendo to talk about Aryan Nation being on the property, suggesting somehow they were welcome there. There is no other purpose than to suggest this when this is not a necessary conclusion. The AN is known to recruit white people, and they lived in the area. That is all that says. I think it is low to put that in and make that negative innuendo. --Diligens 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Dilegens - Wikipedia accepts court transcripts of sworn testimony as a verifiable source - please check it out before deleting, otherwise it can be considered as vandalism.
The word testimony comes from "to witness". The deputy is only witnessing that some people told him this. Nobody denies some unknown people told him this, but that does not make WHAT THEY TOLD him verifiably true. In law it is called "hearsay evidence" which is not the witnesses own knowledge. If we could post everything from court records, WP would become a circus. The deputy in his own work has to go on these things, but courts do not.
Also, the portion about AN being on the grounds is called OR (Original Research) by implication. That is strictly againt the WP rules. To wish that be in there is to force the implied conclusion that they wanted them there on the grounds, and you know very well that visiting that place is open to anyone. There is no fence, and the hill is quite prominent overlooking Spokane. --Diligens 11:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No one is disputing that court testimony is acceptable! The dispute is that THIS testimony is in no way conclusive and yet you are tying it in to explain Schuckardt's actions. Schuckardt was quoted in the Spokesman Review. He said nothing about the Aryan Nations. You still have not explained your thought process on connecting these two things as I requested yesterday. IMHO, this should be done before you revert again. I have never known reverting to actually solve a dispute. Bernie Radecki 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone revolts against you who conducts joint military drills with the Aryan Nations and you don't see any relevance as to why someone would fear for his safety?! I suspect your objection has more to do about your embarrassment in belonging to a Church affiliated with the Aryan Nations Brotherhood than it has to do with actual relevance. Athanasius303 00:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did this come from? Joint drills? You can't just make up stuff! I was hoping you would explain your thought process on why the part about the Aryan Nations should be included. Is this it? Where is there any proof of joint excercises? Where is your proof that there has ever been any affiliation? All you have produced is that someone said that someone did not get a striaght answer when asked if people from the Aryan nations were once seen on Mt. Saint Michael property. There still is no proof they were there. There is definitely no proof they were invited. There is positively no proof that any members of the Aryan Nations were ever affiliated with Mt. Saint Michaels in anyway. Unless you can do better than making unsubstantiated accusations, please stop reverting the article. This is why I insist that contentious claims be verified by published accounts. These types of unfounded accusation are an indicator that Athanasius303 is unfit to be an editor on this article.Bernie Radecki 04:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bernie. This Aryan Nations connection is silly. No such conclusion can be drawn by seeing them on the grounds. They were known to recruit or scout for new members. This is common. The innuendo is a non-sequitur. I have already made myself clear on the court testimony. Athanasius needs to discuss this in detail, and really address the issue. WP rules require it at this point. --Diligens 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303: I agree with Bernie and Diligens. You have yet to prove your point on the AN. I say respectfully, where did you come up with that statement? I can provide proof from many members who belonged to the brigade and they will attest to the fact that nothing like that ever happened. Provide adequate proof, not hearsay, to your accusation. Geroge Wagner 25 MAY 06

Seems to me that court records are reliable sources and verifiable. However, if someone actually fled because of AN, there ought to be much clearer supporting evidence out there than this brief oblique mention in some court record. Was this accusation made in any subsequent writings or news interviews? If this is the only piece of evidence, it's a leap of original research to use it as support. As the accusation could be seen as slander, it ought to meet fairly high standards. Gimmetrow 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Aryan Nations issues does indeed qualify for inclusion in this article. Here are the facts: It's sourced to the sworn testimony in open court of a Sheriff’s Deputy, making it verifiable and sourced. Bishop Schuckardt’s personal website makes mention of his fleeing for fear of his safety, this too is an acceptable source. The Aryan Nations was at Mount Saint Michael’s during Chicoine’s tenure on more than one occasion in a PUBLIC FORUM. All of this is verifiable. I believe it is self-evident on its face that including the Aryan Nations statement in this article is proper both as to relevance and verifiability, and I don’t believe any reasonable mind would draw any other conclusion. Athanasius303 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A reasonable mind doesn't accept hearsay evidence as vefiiable fact. Nobody can access those people who talked to that deputy, so there is no verifiability. Nor does a reasonable mind conclude people are welcome because they were seen on grounds that are easily accessible to the public in general. You didn't even address these two points; you only repeat your shallow claims. Discuss these in detail. --Diligens 22:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone agrees sworn testimony is an acceptable source so stop repeating that! Here is the key: The sworn testimony does not give conclusive evidence the Aryan Nations were welcomed at Mt. St. Michaels and it surely gives no proof that the Aryan Nations were plotting to harm Schuckardt! It does give a verifiable source that Kerfoot was evasive in an answer to a question so it is proof that Kerfoot is evasive at times, but not that the Aryan Nations were plotting Schuckardt harm as you conclude. There is absolutely no proof that I know of that the Aryan Nations were present in any form during Chicoine's tenure as you purport. If you have this proof, produce it as it is now needed. I know of no one other than yourself who believes that you have provided any reason why the Aryan Nations should be included in the article. Give this some thought and try to answer the questions put to you. (I see you have found a guideline that allows the subject's own website to be used. The guideline also states that the material can be added only if it is not contentious or is contradicted by other published sources. Obviously a claim that the nefarious Aryan Nations were plotting with Mt. Saint Michaels to harm Schuckardt is extremely contentious and it is also contradicted by the Schuckardt quote from the Spokesman Review article of August 26, 1984 that is included in the Wikipedia article. I have spent a lot of time researching this article and seeking to dialog on points of contention. George Wagner has been complaining about the Aryan Nations fabrication for about 2 months. I've complained, Diligens sees no merit in it, Gimmetrow calls it slander and original research. It insults all of us when you state that no reasonable mind could find a flaw in your argument. Perhaps you are not reasonable on this topic? Bernie Radecki 21:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bernie. It seems like the disputed passage claims someone felt threatened. The supporting quote says nothing of a threat. At best it says that there are unconfirmed reports that a drill team was watched. IF there is a connection, it's not at all clear. It's like saying Bob threatened to kill me, and my evidence is that Bob owns a gun. Gimmetrow 23:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It should first be noted that all of the objectors to the Aryan Nations statement are partisans and are quite obviously embarrassed by the fact that the church some or all of them attend or are affiliated with has/had ties with the Aryan Nations. I’ve noticed that no one has provided anything to contradict the sworn testimony of the Sheriff’s Deputy.
Its inclusion is important because it informs the reader (that is what encyclopedias are all about) by answering an otherwise unanswered question – why did Bishop Schuckardt flee? The newspaper article quotes him a saying: “If there was anyway we could have stayed there, we would have. They must know that it was made impossible.” There is nothing in this contradictory to the Aryan Nations statement in the article. The article simply states that staying was impossible. The Aryan Nations statement answers this unanswered question. You claim that it doesn’t, but I think it is obvious on its face and that all reasonable minds see it as such. Self-evident issues (like the earth in round) do not need to be proved to partisans who have a personal stake in all of this. Wikipedia is about stating relevant, verifiable facts, and then letting the reader form their own opinions, not your version of events.
I find it interesting how you draw conclusions from the Aryan Nations statement which neither the statement nor the article say. Nowhere does it state that the Aryan Nations were out to get Bishop Schuckardt, … These are your own personal conclusions and I think show how your personal bias is reading things into it which are not there. Athanasius303 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The previous segment by Athanasius303 had been eliminated due to a revert by James Reyes. I have reinserted this segement to of Athanasius303 to continue the dialog. Bernie Radecki 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the dialog: If most people are reading the passage as saying that they were out to get him, and this is not intended, then isn't that enough to rewrite the passage to make it clear? What is the intended inference from the quote? Also, I don't think partisan means what you think it means, and just labelling anyone who disagrees with such a loaded word doesn't help. I am not connected to any of these events. Gimmetrow 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is preposterous! There is as much evidence that Schuckardt fled due to the Aryan Nations as that he fled from the Pilsbury Dough Boy! And to continue making statements that all that oppose you are unreasonable minds and affiliated with White Supremecists is obviously a slanderous, personal attack against those who are trying to make progress on the article by seeking to undertstand your thought process. Oh, the full quote from Schuckardt that is in the article, reads: "If there is some way I can just let the people know we didn't run away. We were sent away. We were thrown out of our home. If there was anyway we could have stayed there, we would have. They must know that it was made impossible." The same Spokesman Review article also stated: "Schuckardt said last week he thought the document was an eviction notice rather than an order to appear in court. He also believed an arrest warrant had been issued." These articles pertain directly to what Schuckardt said and provide a reasonable and verifiable answer to the question of why he fled - He thought he was being throuwn out of his home and that an arrest warrant was issued. Your quote from the sheriff says relatively nothing and occurs years after the event. Why do you ignore the one and stibbornly cling to the other? Bernie Radecki 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It’s ironic, but I read your conclusion as why Bishop Schuckardt left the same way you read about the Aryan Nation’s connection. It seems to me you are drawing conclusions that the statements do not, in and of themselves indicate. The fact that Bishop Schuckardt left in fear for his safety a week before any legal papers were ever delivered, however, punches holes in your conclusion. Court records bear this out.
I was there. I know exactly why he left that Sunday. He was in fear for his safety and that is God’s honest truth. That is why I oppose the mischaracterization of his departure being attributed to something else – it is just plain false.
There seems to be a basic premise dispute here. It seems to me that both Wiki policy and encyclopedic content allow all inclusions of relevant and verifiable information. Again, it a simple matter of stating qualifying facts and then let the readers draw their own conclusions. To subvert this basic concept seems to me to be pushing a POV. Let the facts speak for themselves. Let the readers be informed of the relevant facts and allow them the freedom to reach their own conclusions.
But even setting aside the argument as to whether or not the Aryan Nation’s affiliation played a role in Bishop Schuckardt’s departure, the fact that Chicoine and associates had ties with them is relevant to the story in general. It is an interesting piece of information and it helps to define the opposing parties for the average reader, who presumably have no historical ties to either side. The Aryan Nation’s connection is significant and its exclusion I believe would do injury to any neutral party’s understanding of the circumstances surrounding the story line. Athanasius303 18:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Provide the proof that there ever was any "significant connection" between the Aryan Nations and Chicoine or stop writing it over and over! Gimmetorw asked you, if the text does not mean that Schuckardt feared that the Aryan Nations were out to do him bodily harm, then what does it mean? This whole exercise demonstrates the frustration I have had in dealing with you. Why don't you answer the questions put to you instead of adding more text? This is getting to be very "Alice in Wonderland". This is another indiciation of your lack of fittness to be an editor on this article. Bernie Radecki 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside to editors: Athanasius303 has added text on the arbitration page characterizing all of us as Mt. St. Michaels, pro-Chicoine partisans. The good news is that a third arbitrator has accepted the case. Bernie Radecki 19:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[removal - policy violations] <--- Here Athanasius303 deleted input. Another sign of his lack of fitness to be an editor on this topic. Bernie Radecki 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anna, do you know the reason that your parents sent you to the school? I assume they lived away from the Pacific Northwest. Your recollection of events of the early 80s match my recollection exactly. I believe the Wikipedia article as it now stands does touch on this. The long section entitled something like Counterclaims and answers to Accusations is about 5 times longer than the Accusations in the 80s of the TLRCC being a cult. This seems inappropriate since the majotiry view is that the TLRCC had all these practices that you mention. Hopefully, this imbalance can be addressed. What is your impression on this? I think it is beneficial to hear how others perceive the article. Bernie Radecki 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ATHANASIUS: You are drawing conclusions. You have not proven anything with the AN. You claim you were there and know why. Sorry, but that is not admisable in wikipedia. All of those people who add their personal experiences get them deleted by you, but, I guess it's OK for you to add your experiences. STOP DELETING peoples input.

As for your web site, you mentioned that the AN was mentioned in the article. It may be mentioned NOW but it wasn't originally. The AN section is hear say and unless you have concrete proof that they were invited and drilling with Fr. Denis, then it stays out. George Wagner 29MAY06

<--- Here Athanasius303 deleted input. Another sign of his lack of fitness to be an editor on this topic. Bernie Radecki 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again. Please see below. Athanasius303 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303 [removal of personal attack] all I see is him reverting first and then ignoring the issue on the talk page. It happened again today. Before doing any edits on the talk page, he reverted the article (Check the time stamps) and then ignored the many questions put to him on the Arayan Nations topic to put on the wiki-lawyer hat. How about it Athanasius303? Join the conversation. Please tell us what you are implying by your reference to the Aryan Nations? Instead of addressing the issue at hand, you have made the ludicrous and baseless accusation that Mt. Saint Michaels, a respected institution in Spokane Washington, has been affiliated with white supremcists. After a week of discussing this, no progress has been made. Does this not show that you are unable to put aside your bias and are thus unfit to be an editor on this article? Bernie Radecki 04:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding making changes to the article before posting on the talk page – you know for a fact that I don’t first read the talk pages, edit the article and then post my comments on the talk pages? That is indeed what I do. Again, you are wrong.
I keep answering the same old questions – but here goes again. Wiki is an encyclopedia. All relevant and verifiable facts should be included. These facts should be presented from a NPOV. Let the readers draw their own conclusions from these facts; not your conclusion, not my conclusion; their conclusion.
The Aryan Nations connection with the Mount is significant, relevant and verifiable, regardless of whether or not Bishop Schuckardt fled for fear of his safety because of the Aryan Nations connection or not. I believe any independent thinking person would see this as an important part of the story and therefore it is proper here. Athanasius303 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
On March 18th on this talk page Athanasius303 wrote "I don’t know if the Aryan Nations group was welcomed at Mt. St. Michael’s with open arms or not" On May 25th, Athanasius303 wrote of "joint military drills" and stated Mt. Saint Michaels is "affiliated with the Aryan Nations Brotherhood". On May 26th he stated that the Aryan Nations were at Mt. Saint Michaels "on more than one occasion in a PUBLIC FORUM". (Forgive the shouting, but this is frustrating.) Has he contradicted himself? Has he supplied any proof of his outlandish allegations? Has he answered direct questions? It appears from his responses that he does not even realize that he has not answered the questions put to him. It has now been more than 2 weeks since this issue of the Aryan Nations has been raised and no progress has been made in resolving the issue due to Athanasius303 inability to effectively dialog. True? Bernie Radecki 18:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
See my answer to George Wagner below (or is it Diligens… if it walks like a duck…)
You are correct about the “joint military drills,” it should have accurately said “on the Mt. St. Michael's compound observing St. Francis's brigades performing drills and training.” I apologize for the misstatement. I think the rest of it is accurate. I believe that any reasonable mind would conclude that he Aryan Nations being there on more than one occasion observing drills and training would constitute “affiliation” and a “public forum.” It certainly was not a secret meeting, brigades performing drills are usually a public event. Athanasius303 19:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


OK, Athanasius, it sounds like you are saying that your intent with the quote is to show that there is merely a "connection" between AN and the group opposing the subject of this article. If so, make that statement elsewhere in the article. At that particular location, it seems to suggest that AN helped threaten the subject of this article in some way, and if that is not what you want to suggest, it should be avoided. The quote provided does not (it seems to me) support saying there was a threat. Gimmetrow 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I see Athanasius303 again today reverted without discussing anything with anyone. I am especially distressed to see that he added back a highly contentious statement on the topic of Shuckardt's excommunication of Chicoine. During the mediation process, a few weeks and over 5,000 words of dialog between myself, Athanasius303, George Wagner, and DanielPi were spent on this topic coming to a comprimise that all accepted. In fact, that was the only successful collaborative outcome the whole process achieved. His attempt to add back the highly contentious statement is another example of Athanasius being unable to collaboratively work with other editors. Here is the link the topic of Chicoine's [| Excommunication] if anyone wants to see the extensive dialog expended to reach a comprimise on a topic that I believe should have been cut and dry. Perhaps the Arbitrators can take a look at the discussion on the excommunication to determine for themselves if Athanasius303 if a fit editor on this topic.Bernie Radecki 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Disregard for Wikipedia Policy

It is clear that the Rev. Belzak has absolutely no regard for Wikipedia policy. This is unacceptable and not in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia is not the closed, mind-controlled environment of a cult commune, but open and democratic. You have to tolerate opposing views even if they are distasteful to you. Simply labeling an opposing view a "personal attack" doesn't make it so.

You cannot arbitrarily edit talk pages to suit your partisan whims. You need to stop immediately and comport yourself according to Wikipedia policy if you choose to continue as a Wikipedia editor.

-JamesReyes 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, let it be known that James Reyes is a partisan and a defender of Chicoine. Before accusing others of violations of policy, I suggest that you first read the policies yourself – you will see that my deletions are in keeping with policy and the postings I deleted are not. Go to Wikipedia’s policy on Verifiability and get informed. Athanasius303 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius, WP policy does not apply to Talk pages as it does to articles. Also, if Reyes is partisan towards Fr. Chicoine, that is not against WP policy as long as the actual edits he makes are not partisan in themselves. Stick with talking about edits, not the person. You also violate WP policy because you are supposed to DISCUSS the controverted edits. You have not been doing so. Discussion is not monologue. I have detailed why your edits are wrong and you have not responded in like detail on the points I have made. You are ignoring the discussion which is against policy. If you edit the article on the points of discussion before completing the discussion, it can be considered as vandalizing. --Diligens 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dilegens - you are mistaken. Please see section below. Athanasius303 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius, many have explicitly told you, including the mediator DanielPi, not to remove dialog from talk pages unless it is attacking another editor personally! This is another indication of your unfitness to be an editor on this article. Bernie Radecki 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[removal per policy] Athanasius303 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Radecki - again you are wrong. Do you see a pattern here? See below. Athanasius303 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Counter Accusation - Counter Answers Section Needed to eliminate POV

The format of "Accusations" and "Answers to Accusations" is one sided and unbalanced. It would seem to be more neutral and less POV to also include a section of "Counter Accusations" and "Counter Answers" to help balance out this otherwise lopsided format. Athanasius303 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove a bunch of your "Answers to Accusations" section as it is way to long. As a suggestions, instead of quoting text from the 4th century, find something written in current newspaper or magazine articles explicitly supporting Schuckardt's practices. If all you have is Schukardt's original research, remove the whole "Answers to Accusations" section and direct the reader to Schuckardt's own website where the Wikipedia policies of NBo Original Research, Verifiability, and NPOV do not apply. However, maybe you should spend a little more time on addressing the concerns with your continuous reverting of the article to include your unfounded Aryan Nations claim. Bernie Radecki 21:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[removal per policy] Athanasius303 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy Notice to anti-Schuckardt Crowd

EVERYONE please take note: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule." This is a direct quote from Wikipedia's Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons. My removal's are in conformity with this policy. Athanasius303 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Athanasius303: Not in the interest of ganging up on you, I must agree with the others. Your citing needs to be current and your sections ANSWERS AND ACCUSATIONS needs sufficient citing. If you can't provide I move to delete the whole section. Also, as I stated before, stop deleting comments on the talk page. James Reyes is not a partisan to Chicoine simply because he never knew him. His edits are purely subjective and should remain. If you are calling him partisan towards and individual then you must be called the same. George Wagner 29 may 06

Rev. Belzak's tone implies that I am trying to sneak around and hide my bias in this debate. This isn't true. I was never personally part Schuckardt's cult. I did, however, have family who was. I was raised as a traditional Catholic attending a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X in Texas and then later a chapel serviced by Fr. George Musey (later Bishop). I do remember as a small child (early 1980's) meeting clerics from the CMRI during Schuckardt's tenure as I accompanied my uncle, who was a member, to talks given by the CMRI at a hotel. I also remember going to Fatima cell meetings hosted by the Theroux family. I remember that two of their sons were CMRI brothers. After Schuckardt left and Bishop Musey took over as bishop, my immediate family was open to attending Masses offered by the CMRI. In the early 1990's, I was sent to Mount Saint Michael as a boarding high school student. It was during this time that I became friends with George Wagner who was in the same graduating class with me. I had also made the acquainance of Bernie and Francie Radecki. I have to correct George on one point above; I did personally know Fr. Denis Chicoine, having met him when I was a small child and then later developed a relationship with him while I was in high school. I would spend time talking with him when he came up from New Zealand and later when he moved back to the Mount after he was diagnosed with cancer. I do not know what Fr. Denis was like before, but when I knew him, Fr. Denis seemed to me to be a very humble and deeply spiritual man and I always felt the most profound respect and reverence for him and treated him accordingly. I always appreciated and valued his spiritual counsel and I continue to hold this saintly man in the highest regard. This does not mean he was without flaws by any means. I am not an uncritical apologist.

Initially, in authoring this article, I was hoping to provide factual information about Rev. Schuckardt to allow others to learn from the past and draw lessons from this sort of destructive cult. I had heard first-hand, story after story about the horrors of the Schuckardt cult. I was also interested in learning where Schuckardt's current followers were coming from. I wanted to expand my knowledge beyond what I had heard from Fr. Denis and others.

Unfortunately this initial focus is gone from this article. This article has been trashed and the discussion page is a joke. I believe that there is no reasoning with Rev. Belzak. JamesReyes 21:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but encyclopedia's are not about someone's person opinion and your personal attacks on me are a policy violation - but you know that already, don't you. I am glad you finally came clean as to where you bias lies. I identified myself on day one, I only wish the others who hide behind user names would come into the light so that the reader will know if their input is driven by any personal bias, whether that bias be known or unknown to them personally. It the interest of neutrality, it seems the right thing to do. Athanasius303 17:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
George Wagner: Thank you attempting to bring civility to this talk page. I'll try to answer your objections.
I disagree with your assessment that the statements in the Answers to Accusations lacks sufficient citing (I'm speaking in generalities, there may be a specific incident or two that you can point out that might indeed warrant further citation, but absent your specifying any, I cannot address them). The personal website of the subject of a living person is a citable source. The various other sources are all from Catholic sources which are available to everyone for personal verification.
I also disagree with your assessment of James Reyes. He was present at Pivarunas' "consecration" at the Mount. If you read his input on various other articles (such as sedevacantism) you will see how he conveniently leaves Bishop Schuckardt completely out of the picture of this movement, even though there is historical evidence to the contrary. He is using Wikipedia to rewrite the history of sedevacantism is such a fashion as to eliminate Bishop Schuckardt altogether - this demonstrates bias. Athanasius303 0:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

EVERYONE: The Arbitration Committee is considering this article. Why can't everyone simply cool off and let them decide? We are clearly not going to reach consensus on our own. Thank you. Athanasius303 20:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303: Your addition is noted. I will look at the sedevacantism article when I get a chance.

I also would like to make a statement. Although I strongly disagree with Athanasius and the group, I would encourage ALL to be civil and to be charitable to one another, that includes myself. That means no attacks directed to an editor and the removal of of statements (no matter how much you object to them) on the talk page.

George Wagner 30MAY06

  • I think it is fair enough for Athanasius to remove Anna's bad experience from the Talk page, considering what the rules says. Besides that, it is really not to the point of discussion anyway. Talk pages are NOT made to contain permanent information so why complain about the deletion since 1. you have already read it, and 2. it is always there on the history pages? It really is just a diversion to keep arguing about that.
  • I think it is a complete diversion for Athanasius to keep pointing to Reyes and accusing him of being biased as a person. WP only cares about ACTUAL edits that break rules. This is the talk page for THIS article and if Reyes hasn't broken any rule HERE, then he should be left alone and not attacked here. All people have some bias in them, which is not against WP rules. There is nothing wrong with bias if you intend it to be according to truth and conscience. Just focus on actual edits and make sure they are according to rules, not the motives of people.
Let’s look at the facts. James Reyes initiated this exchange by posting the following: “It is clear that the Rev. Belzak has absolutely no regard for Wikipedia policy. This is unacceptable and not in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia. Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia is not the closed, mind-controlled environment of a cult commune, but open and democratic. You have to tolerate opposing views even if they are distasteful to you. Simply labeling an opposing view a "personal attack" doesn't make it so.”
James Reyes was wrong regarding Wiki policy and he launched an unprovoked personal attack on me. Simply defending policy and pointing out his partisanship is not a personal attack, it is simply identifying the motives of editors which need to be considered if neutrality means anything at all. Athanasius303 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Athanasius, however, continually breaks rules by editing before a discussion is finished. That amounts to vandalism. Also, he refuses to address the points I have made about AN even after I have repeated asked him to do so. The rules say that if you don't talk, you are considered not interested in reaching a consensus. Athanasius, if you don't start "discussing" my points, you will be considered to have given up your part in any consensus. ARBITRATION SAYS IT IS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS and you are not doing so. --Diligens 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Breaking what rules? These talk pages are probably about 60 pages long by now and you will find my postings throughout the entire length of it, so how do you come to the conclusion that I am not participating in the discussion?
I believe I have addressed every argument regarding the Aryan Nations somewhere in these talk pages and I don’t see the benefit of going round-and-round without any end in sight. We simply disagree on this issue. Radecki pulled out of Mediation before that process was allowed to conclude and now the Arbitration Committee will hopefully weigh in and put a conclusion to all of these matters. If you think there is something I haven’t addressed, please ask it again in a format that constitutes a question and not a personal attack and I will answer it to the best of my abilities. Athanasius303 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


I find it interesting that on the other controversial pages I am following, only personal attacks on the editors seem to be removed. At this point I have no idea what the status quo is on this page, but as it is under mediation it seems like changes should involve consensus. There isn't a consensus here. Personally, I don't like either version very well, but I find more problems with the Athanasius303 version of that passage than with the other one. Gimmetrow 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[removal of personal attack by Radecki] Athanasius303 18:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303: I'll have to agree with Bernie, he has done the research and properly cited his additions and I haven't seen any proof (as of yet) from you. You have to prove that the AN were involved with MSM other than a comment made in a court room. It's not concrete enough. You in now way can imply that Fr. Denis or anyone for that matter was connected with the AN. All we are asking for is some other form of documentation proving your claim.

I have read the other additions Bernie has added, why do you revert? They are well sourced documents and valid in WP? Here's a thought... If I made a home page for Fr. Denis and wrote an article reflecting my views (and approved by CMRI) would that constitute adequate material for citing?

George Wagner 31 MAY 06

George: It seems to me that you are demanding a higher standard of verification than Wikipedia requires regarding the Aryan Nations statement and that any statement against Bishop Schuckardt requires almost no standard whatsoever. That is why you hear me repeating Wiki Policy ad nauseam, there has to be one set of rules which all editors must abide by, otherwise you will wind up with chaos.
Much of what Radecki has cited is not proper for a variety of reasons:
  • Much of it is simply guilt by association, that somehow everything that happened in this Church of over 1,000 lay members and about 200 Religious Priests, Brothers and Sisters is all the Bishop’s fault, and that anything that happened that was good is due to someone else. You keep demanding a greater linkup about the Aryan Nations issue, yet seem content that there is next to none regarding some of the negative statements about the Bishop. I can’t think of any society on the face of the earth where they practice the hierarchical standard of guilty that some of you apply to the Bishop. Was no one personally responsible for their own actions? If your employer tells you to rob a bank, guess who is going to jail? Not him, you! Why? Because all societies recognize that all adults have a free will which they and they alone control. It is only here in this article that personal responsibility seems to have been abrogated by those doing wrongful acts (if they did actually occur) and everything is the Bishop’s fault. It’s incredible that this one bed-ridden, ill man could be responsible for so much. All this demonstrates to me how biased some of the anti-Schuckardt editors are. I honesty do not believe that any of you should be editing this article, because it seems to me that you cannot over your biases, that is if you even recognize having it.
  • Much of Radecki’s postings are purely gratuitous (such as no American flags in the schools…) and need to be sourced. Much of it is from obscure sources (“public letters” …) that fail to meet Wiki standards; we apparently have to take his word for them. The burden of proof is on him, not the other way around. He needs to prove his sources are verifiable and relevant. Until he can do so, it is proper to remove them. Again, this is Wiki policy, not mine.
The statement about the Aryan Nations meets Wikipedia’s standards. I’ve proven that time and again. You disagree, but your arguments seem to demand qualifications that only you deem necessary. I do not understand the continual argument made by you that the Aryan Nations were not INVITED to the Mount. This argument is especially troublesome when one considers the setting at the Mount. For the uniformed reader: Mt. St. Michaels has one road going in and out, period. There is (or at least was during the time frame in question here) a gate and a guard house blocking that road into the Mount. No one just accidentally wanders into Mt. St. Michaels, it is not a subdivision. Be that as it may, it is inconceivable to believe that “members of the Richard Butler Aryan Nations Church had been seen on the Mt. St. Michael's compound observing St. Francis's brigades performing drills and training” as uninvited guests. Any reasonable person would have seen to their removal immediately and made sure that they did not return, unless, of course, they were welcome. But whether they were invited or not, does not change the fact that there is/was some obvious affiliation going on and this affiliation would cause concern to any reasonable person. Again – all relevant facts should be included – let the readers form their own opinions. Athanasius303 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Athanasius303, you still have provided no proof that the Aryan Nations were ever at Mt. Saint Michaels. It is both very perplexing and very sad that you do not realize this. Also, although I have open letters that could add further support to the some of the topics in the article, I have refrained from using any of them. Instead, I have used newspaper articles that deal directly with the topics, often quoting Francis Schuckardt - as I did on the question of the American flag. The Spokesman Review, the main newspaper of Eastern Washington, is obviously a verifiable source. I have cited the dates of August 10, 1983 and July 27, 1986 as these issues contained extensive articles on Schuckardt that go into great detail on the allegations that there were no flags, that the holocaust didn't happen, Anti-semitism... There is of course much more evidence of bizarre beliefs and practices of Schuckardt's church in the newspaper articles, but space is limited in the article. You are using a strawman argument to justify reverting the article. That is unfair. You write well, but you are missing the issues badly. This is not meant as a personal attack, just an observation. We now have gotten a 4th arbitrator. Consider not reverting until they weigh in as you appear unable to work in collaboration with others. I do think you are insulting Gimmetrow and Diligens and frustrating me and probably George Wagner also. Bernie Radecki Bernie Radecki 21:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Athanasius303 did respond to my concern that this passage implied there was a threat. He stated that this quote is used only to show a "connection." The current location of the quote within the article, however, seemed to me to imply a threat was made. To avoid this implication I think the quote would need to be moved elsewhere in the article. I'm still a bit worried "connection" is "guilt by association" but it's hard to tell until it gets used in a different context. Gimmetrow 04:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your statement that the excesses of Schuckardt's church are not attributable to Schuckardt, The article from the Spokesman Review dated July 27, 1986, relates that when Schuckardt's band moved near Greenville, the same abuses began again. I have numerous articles that relate that after Schuckardt's departure from Mt. Saint Michaels, the abuses stopped. I believe this material is better suited for the Wikipedia article on Denis Chicoine, so I have not added them to the already long article on Francis Schuckardt. Additionally, the reports out of King 5 News and CNBC relate current bizarre practices related to Schuckardt's group in Renton. We have of course had eye witness reports here on the talk page that the abuses stopped once Schukardt left Mt. Saint Michaels. So the track record demonstrates the bizarre behaviour follows Schuckardt. Let anyone in doubt about this take a look at the video showing a Satan caricature terrorizing the toddlers and young children of Schuckardt's church. I know Athanasius303 will say that no clerics were present, but I submit that these actions are the fruit of the teachings of Schuckardt's church. Bernie Radecki 22:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the June 27, 1986 article Bernie references above. Spokesman Review Article James Reyes 17:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In answer to a question that Bernie asked me earlier about the parts of this article: "The long section entitled something like Counterclaims and answers to Accusations is about 5 times longer than the Accusations in the 80s of the TLRCC being a cult. This seems inappropriate since the majotiry view is that the TLRCC had all these practices that you mention. Hopefully, this imbalance can be addressed. What is your impression on this? I think it is beneficial to hear how others perceive the article. Bernie Radecki 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)" I think thos article is heavily weighted and written by a someone who may possibly be involved in this group(I don't know) I do however feel that both sides need to be heard. It would be sad to see someone make an uneducated decision based upon what they have read (or have not been able to read here) and end up dead like those 2 nuns in washington.Anna 02:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Athanasius303: I understand what you are saying, but, you are wrong. In the military people die on assumption. They are not allowed. Period. You are making a HUGE assumption based on little information, not to mention, as Catholics we shouldn't do so anyway. How do you know (and of course they were welcome) they were welcome? What information do you have to back that up? This is my point, to prove statements. Let the reader know that MSM is a very big piece of property. It is very easy to sneak in and out without being seen. For a period of time there was no guard and people would come and go as they pleased. I know this because my father would volunteer his time at the guard house. There is now an eletronic gate in place. We are not demanding above and beyond evidence from you. The fact is Frater, we have the sourced documents proving allegations against Schuckardt and testimony from (eye witnesses (which doesn't apply to WP)). We are just asking simply for proof....

George Wagner 1 JUNE 06

News on Arbitration

The article is now in the more formal phase of arbitration. Here is a link to the Evidence page. Anyone may enter in evidence on that page. I already have. Bernie Radecki 05:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no sense in replicating my arguments here when they will be made to the Arbitration Commitee. Athanasius303 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the specific questions arbitration is addressing? (Wasn't clear to me from the link) Gimmetrow 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the original request: Request for Arbitration. Hopefully that makes it clear. If not, let me know. We are all probably new to this and if something written doesn't make sense to you, it probably won't make sense to the Arbitrators eother which would be a very bad thing. Bernie Radecki 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is, what exactly are the arbitrators arbitrating? The notes accepting arbitration seem to limit their interest to Wikipedia:POV pushing and not content. What does that mean? Also, the link provided to the original request distinguishes between "Evidence" and "Comments". What exactly is that difference? Also, Bernie, with http-based references you only need one bracket around both the link and nametext, and no vertical bar between them. Take a look at this diff to see the differences. Gimmetrow 19:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the difference between the Evidence and Comments. The Comments did come first and were used to demonstrate that arbitration was necessary. I don't know if the Evidence is supposed to stand on its own, separate from the Comments or not so I did my part so as to be stand alone. I think the arbitrators do not want to read a lot about the content of this dispute. For example, they are not interested in the state of the "Modern" Catholic Church and the belief system of those who reject the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Instead, I think they are concentrating on any obvious violations related to the Wikipedia rules of No Orignal Research, Verifiability, NPOV, guidelines for Living Persons... It is my hope that the arbitrators will determine who is misreading these rules as there is an obvioius difference of opinion on them. I of course am hoping that Athansius303 gets banned due to his conduct. Who knows, maybe the arbitrators will conclude that I am the one causing the problems on the Francis Schuckardt article and I will be banned. Bernie Radecki 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[subsequent discussion here deleted by Gimmetrow 19:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)]

Editor's have a few more days on the Evidence page.

I and Athanasius303 have written sections on the Arbitration Evidence page. If anyone else would like to make any comments there, do so in the next few days. Concise statements supporting one view or the other may make the Arbitrator's task easier. I have no trouble with people pointing out my shortcomings on the evidence page. Bernie Radecki 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal speculation not verifiable and therefore not permitted

Radecki - Your personal suspicions... are not admissible here for a whole multitude of obvious reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; only verifiable and relevant material is permitted - you should know this by now. I think perhaps a little bit of self-introspection might be beneficial to help you see how partisan you are, to me at least. Athanasius303 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you are referring to about my personal suspicions. I will admit I don't like your behaviour as an editor. I liked your brother Steve well enough to have him be a witness at my wife and I's betrothal ceremony in January of 1981. Did he ever tell you about the time he let me try to drive his diesal VW Rabbit car? I liked your brother Mitch too. Bernie Radecki 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow - I'm sorry you entered into this arena so late into the game - in recent months frustration and exasperation seem to be more controlling here than reason and sense. I have no idea just what Arbitration might do with this article and I would encourage all editors to simply sit it out for the time being and allow this process to go forward. Below is something I posted to the Arbritation Committee and adequately sums up my thoughts about further dialogue on these talk pages for the present:

  • "The talk pages are about 60 pages long and have proven to be totally ineffectual. I posted to all editors at the beginning of the Mediation process that my time was presently tight and that seemed only to encourage them to post all the more vigorously. Considering the fact that I cannot keep up with all of their postings (almost all of which are rehashes) and the fact that these pages have produced NOTHING constructive, I reject Radecki’s mischaracterization of my failure to engage in meaningful discussions. In fact, you will probably discover that there are more of my postings (initially as "Fra. John") on the talk pages than anyone else’s; but endless debate without results serves no purpose and I raised that concern on a number of occasions."

When this process is concluded, I will make a concerted effort to work with you and others on any issue that you feel might need to be addressed, but for the time being it just seems futile to me to go any further. Thanks. Athanasius303 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

James Reyes: The notation you posted after your revert does not support your revert. A private website recently launched does not qualify, neither do gratuitous unverifiable statements, personal "public" letters, ... The burden of proof in on the editor making such postings; that burden has not been met. Again I remind you: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule." Athanasius303 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with all the verbage on these pages but just skim read over some of the newer additions. I never tried to hide the fact that I was once a member of the Tridentines and even a nun under Schuckardt. I wrote about my experiences as such on the talk page and everything I wrote was deleted by Athanasius. I did side with Chicoine in 1984. [removal per policy: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule." This is a direct quote from Wikipedia's Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons.]

I no longer belong to any traditional movement - I left the convent before Chicoine passed away. I am happily married and have no agenda for either religious leader. [removal per policy: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule." This is a direct quote from Wikipedia's Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons.]

The example about robbing a bank is wrong though. If someone tells you to rob a bank and you do so, you will be prosectuted. The person who tells you to rob the bank can also be prosecuted for conspiracy to rob a bank. And in the real world that offense is worse. Sometimes prosecutors will give a lesser sentence to the perpetrator of the crime in order to get to the person in charge.

[removal per policy: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule." This is a direct quote from Wikipedia's Guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons.] Athanasius303 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(laurie pipan June 5, 2006)

Talk page discipline

A reminder to all editors:

  1. This talk page is provided to discuss the article and not the subject (see Wikipedia:Talk pages);
  2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum or USENET (see WP:NOT);
  3. This article is about a living person, so it needs to be edited according to the guidelines presented in WP:LIVING. Note that this includes certain limitations in regard of material posted on talk pages as well
  4. If editors feel the need to discuss the subject, there are more suitable enviroments to do so, such as blogs, discussions forums, chatrooms and the like.
  5. This page is almost 300K. Consider archiving this page from time to time.

I will be monitoring this talk page, and provide further advice as it pertains to WP policy, if I see it is needed, or to answer any questions in ths regard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is not being archived because it is under arbitration, and we do not want to break the diffs. When arbitration is over the page will be archived and cleared for a fresh start. Gimmetrow 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the arbitration been accepted by the ArbCom? I do not see any attempts at mediation or other steps in the dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines are duly noted, but the article should be edited in accordance with all Wikipidea policies right? It doesn't seem appropriate to me to label the talk page with the template to single out this one guideline on the Biography of a Living Person. No Original Research, Verifiability, and NPOV are imporatant to everyone too. Surely you did not add this section here in response to Laurie Pipin's recent entry? Bernie Radecki 05:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The {{blp}} template was created to alert editors of specific issues pertaining articles on living persons, in response to legal issues related to defamation and libel. Read WP:LIVING and WP:BLOCK#Biographies_of_living_persons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you have joined the conversation Jossi as an impartial third voice. Help me to understand something. The guidelines under WP:LIVING, under the section "Remove unsourced criticism", contain this sentance: "Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."" As far as I can tell, what has been occurring on this talk page is that people that were living in Schuckardt's church in the 70s and 80s were sharing their first-hand, eye-witness accounts here on the talk pages to substantiate the information listed in the article. Now, I think it is agreed that these first-hand accounts are not proper material for the article, but I was under the impression that they are allowed on the Talk Pages. I mean, these definitely are not 'I heard it somewhere' accounts. As an actual situation. Athanasius303 contested a part of the article that stated that in Schuckardt's church in the late 70s to early 80s, females had to wear veils when in public. He said they only had to wear veils in church. I knew that was um, way not true. Then a number of females who were in the church at that time (Laurie Pipin for one, Julie Czapala, my wife) wrote on the Talk Page that they had first hand knowledge that this was in fact true. This led me to search publications from the 70s and 80s and I found a high school publication that showed a picture of a group of female high school students swimming in veils and long dresses in a remote lake in North Idaho on an outing. There were no males. They were by themselves. So here I had a primary source giving credence to the eye-witness reports that were made on the Talk pages. So as I see it, these Eye Witness reports on the Talk Pages are not the 'random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information ' that Jimbo Wales is referring to, but rather does help to move work on the article forward. I would value to comment on this. Bernie Radecki 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to get involved in the content dispute. But the way I see this is that Talk pages need basic discipline to be useful. Talk pages in WP are provided to discuss the article and not the subject. If you want to discuss personal experiences, you can do so by starting a blog or a User group or discussion forum. I would refer you to What Wikipedia is not in which it is clearly stated that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a free host, a blog, a social networking site, USENET, a discussion forum, etc. and in which it is also stated that Wikipedia is also not a forum for unregulated free speech. In particular as it pertains to living persons, any posts of unsourced or poorly sourced (as per reliable sources policies) material that may be of defamatory nature cand and should be immediately deleted from the article and the talk pages, as explained in Biographies of living people. Also note that there is a special case in the blocking policy that refers to the same issue. See: WP:BLOCK#Biographies of living people. Concerning this specific case, I would argue that both sides of the dispute have not maintained basic talk-page discipline: once side by adding comments that are not inline with talk-page use guidelines, and the other side by deleting and refactoring comments by other editors. In addition, both pro and anti sides have not been shown respect to each other or being civil enough for comfort and have engaged in personal attacks. In these circumstances, it is very stressful to edit an article and, in my experience, no side ever gets away with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. We are lucky to have someone of your level of experience adding input to this page. All I can respectfully say is that it is the content, coupled with Athanasisu303's attitude, that has inflamed me and I hazard to say the others that Athanasius303 has labelled as the "anti-Shuckardt" crowd. There are a lot of dynamics involved in this issue. Suffice it to say, and I know it is hyperbole, that holocaust survivors would have difficulty accepting an article in Wikipedia that purports to prove that the holocaust was a myth. Bernie Radecki 06:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, Bernie. In this project I have seen nazis editing the Holocaust article, anti-Castro cubans editing the article on Fidel Castro, and so on. The beauty of this project, Bernie, is that if we abide by its content polocies, and despite differeces of opinion, editors of opposing POVs can edit contentious articles. It is possible, Bernie. But it requires a few things; (a) making edits and comments in good faith, (b) remaining civil, and (c) respecting each other despite the differences of POVs, and most importantly understanding and embracing the content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Iam reverting the article once again because someone has changed Expulsion and Exile. This does not meet WP standards. Fra John has not provided adequate info to support his theory about the AN. So here we go again....

George Wagner 06 JUNE 06

Athanasius - you privately interpret Wikipedia rules in the same fashion your "church" interprets the Bible and Church Law. Mediator Daniel Pi told you explicitly that you should not edit the Talk Page. (Laurie Pipan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.159.151 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediator's opinion on this issue was contary to Wikipedia policy. I said nothing at the time because I was grateful to have someone mediating this process and I felt there were more important issues that needed to be addressed. Please check out Wiki policies for yourself. Athanasius303 18:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
A learning point for all is what Jossi wrote regarding when civility breaks down: "...it is very stressful to edit an article and, in my experience, no side ever gets away with it"I appreciate Jossi's input but she did not weigh in on this particular debate as she did not want to address the content of the article that led specific individuals to write certain things. There are many guidelines and policies in Wikipedia. There are WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR that Jossi cited. When these 3 items are not adhered to, things breakdown.
As in the case where you replied in the Answers to Accusations section: "Women were not required to cover their heads except when in Church". You stated, without any reference at all, that women were encouraged to have their heads covered whenever in public. There is often a thin line between these two verbs. Often, the ones in power do the "encouraging" and the ones in a dependent position are compelled to conform. The first hand information given on the talk page led light on how far the "encouragement" went. The picture from the 1972 girl's high school publication gives a dramatic indication as it showed high school girls swimming by themselves in a remote lake in north Idaho with long dresses and veils on. Is that an indication of encouragement or requirement? I will admit, it is not the best sources because it is difficult to come up with sources due to the smallness of Schuckardt's church and the passage of 30 years. I wonder if the Arbitrators would think I have a stronger case with my "veils required" claim than you do with your "Aryan Nation-Mt. Saint Michael affiliation". Bernie Radecki 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The first dispute that came up after I started watching this page was the AN issue, but the veils issue is similarly weak. I have a difficult time imagining either in an encylcopedia except perhaps as carefully conditioned background details. For example, it might be possible to say that FS perceived an AN presence and was afraid of the consequences. Or simply stating women were encouraged to cover heads outside church, perhaps with the picture scanned from the book (with proper attribution). Just ideas, not saying this is the way to go. To me, it seems that the content desired in both cases tries to say more than it should. Whatever social pressure there may or may not have been about head covering, I suspect Athanasius is correct that it was not required, so to say "required" is to say too much.
Note: by "encyclopedia" here and in the evidence page I mean wikipedia, not the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I am considering the disclosure request, Athanasius, but are you saying that you feel I have been pushing a POV? I may have one, but it happens that I was more in agreement with Diligens than you on the first conflict that came up. Had it been the veils issue and Bernie had not been responsive, it would have been the other way around. Gimmetrow 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, if we can get the situation diffused and can start discussing it, I'm willing to strike my complaints regarding the AN quote. Gimmetrow 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying Gimmetrow. But it is a little hard to accept being that I know the pressure that was brought to bear in the Schuckardt church for those who did not conform. When my wife was just out of high school, she worked at the Department of Labor in Spokane. The pressure from the church was strong enough that she wore a head covering and long dress to work everyday. This is not easy for a girl in her late teens. To do otherwise would be to cause men to have lustful thoughts and the woman would be sinning gravely. I imagine Athanasius303 could easily corroborate this statement with a quote from a document of the Catholic Church.
Going back to my holocaust hyperbole, it is hard for the survivors to listen to someone say the holocaust was a myth. That section of the article is based on complaints from former members so I thought that put the content into perspective a bit. Be that as it may, you are a third party voice and so obviously are needed here. If the playing field is level, I will be content. That is, if an agreement is reached that statements need to be verifiable through third party sources, I can abide by that. What I don't like, is that Athanasius303 can say that it was only "encouraged" and give no proof at all, whereas I have both eyewitness testimony and the picture. I guess I may be able to find something detailing that the encouragement was that if you dressed otherwise, you would be sinning mortally and go to hell when you die. I should scan the picture in. Tell me Gimmetrow, what do you thinik induces a bunch of highschool girls to go swimming by themselves in a remote North Idaho lake in long dresses and veils? Tell me if you have knowledge of experiences similar to this. I hope I don't sound confrontational. This part is the coolest part of Wikipedia to me. It is only the words that communicate and that often doesn't convey knowledge.
Anyway, if I am still editing once the arbitration is complete, I would be for tagging the article with the 'citation needed' deals like I started to do earlier and then rip into the whole thing. Bernie Radecki 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A note of caution, scanning a page of a book and uploading it Wikipedia is not possible as it will be tagged as a copyright violation and mercilessly deleted from the Wikimedia servers. Another note of caution, is that what you are stating above may be original research (see WP:NOR). In Wikipedia we only report what reputable sources say about a subject (in biographies we can also quote from websites and self-published material from the subject or its organization(s)). If there is a reliable source that describes women using veils and encouraged to dress in a particular way, we can cite from that source. If there is no such source, and regardless if there are personal experiences or witness accounts of editors, we cannot include that in the article. See also WP:V that states "Verifiability, not truth." And lastly, please note that I am a man and not a woman as assumed in a post above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
(My apologies Jossi, some associates of mine in Kobe thought I was a female for months.) The Schuckardt church ran a number of schools in the Couer d'Alene Idaho area. The picture from 1972 is from a publication of the girl's high school. Would that be considered self-published material? I do vaguely remember a self-published publication called "Long Hot Summer Leads to Long Hot Eternity" but I might not be able to find it. This topic may really be splitting hairs. Athanasius303 does defend the extreme modesty standards cited in the article and in a footnote he cites the quote of one of the three seers at Fatima: "Our Lady said that more souls to go Hell because of sins of the flesh, than for any other reason,". So to me it is barely contentious that head coverings were required of females in more places than in church. Even the MSNBC footage from 2004 or 2005 shows females in Schuckardt's church having a Holloween or All Saint's day party and they all had on veils and they weren't in Church. All that blah, blah blah said, as long as citations from publications like the Spokesman Review, Inland Register, Couer d'Alene Press, the King 5 News, and MSNBC stop getting reverted out, I would agree balance is brought to the article. Right now, the artilce is in what I call a "mutually detestable" condition. It has a lot of stuff that I don't like and it has a lot of stuff Athanasius303 doesn't like. I am not opposed at all to working with others to correct this condition and input from level headed people like Jossi and Gimmetrow is exactly what I need. Bernie Radecki 07:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about "level headed" - I still think talk space deserves some latitude that article space doesn't. As for the picture, I've read WP:COPYVIO and WP:FAIR and it seems like a low-res picture of the picture might pass fair use. I've been trying to understand the policies in relation to customary practice, and I have seen quite a few articles which include a digital camera photograph of a printed work.
Think what you would expect to find in an encyclopedia. I suspect a large portion of this article is not encyclopedic. It may help to look at some other similar topics: Exclusive Brethren, Harley Reagan, or Iglesia ni Cristo. (I was also going to suggest Sukyo Mahikari but as I read the article, I'm not sure that's a good example.) I'm sure the veils issue is important to you and your wife. If it's been mentioned in a newspaper article it's fair game. If not it's probably not relevant to the rest of the world - it would come across as an oddity like Amish customs, unless one of the girls drowned because of it (hopefully not). Gimmetrow 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a pretty one-dimensional Wikipedia editor: only this topic so I do lack perspective! This dialog has made me realize that, although the veil deal may was perceived as a control issue to some of the female members of Schuckardt's church in the 70s and 80s, there is at present no third party source to clarify the issue between "encouraged" and "required" so the allegation should be excised from the article. Bernie Radecki 14:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)