CTTK’s entire argument rests, as I have said previously, upon the two Bishops’ statements containing no formal condemnation in forma specifica. Then, they add to this the following statement:
Were a bishop to issue a formal condemnation of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s messages, and were the prophecies of the Warning, the Chastisements, World War III, the Three Days of Darkness, and the Era of Peace to then occur, such a condemnation would reflect poorly on said bishop and on the Catholic Church as a whole. An erroneous condemnation would put into question the sanctity and surety of any bishop’s official statement, which is presumed utterly correct and to come from a thorough investigation.
CTTK would likely prefer to think of this statement as something along the lines of a “friendly warning,” but I beg to differ. It comes across more as a bully-tactic in that it serves the purpose of backing the two Bishops into a corner of continual doubt. Doing this provides a soft and cushy “grey area” in which CTTK can then operate.
I believe it is appropriate to draw attention at this time to the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici:
Can. 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.
§2. Through more suitable means, he is firmly to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed, while nonetheless acknowledging a just freedom in further investigating its truths.
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
Based upon the above considerations:
- Bishops Bourgon and Lemay have made known their mind on the question of Fr. Rodrigue;
- They have declared their total disavowal of Rodrigue’s alleged messages;
- In doing so, they have exercised their office;
- The faithful are bound to obey what has been stated.
I would add to these considerations the observation that BOTH Bishops have indicated that Rodrigue was never an official exorcist. This can be interpreted as a tongue-in-cheek (indirect) statement that Rodrigue has misrepresented himself, if not actually lied.
Despite these facts, CTTK has decided to downplay the statements of the Bishops by dismissing them as being merely their “personal opinion.” In doing such, CTTK is dangerously running close to encouraging disunity within the Body of Christ. Moreover, if Fr. Rodrigue has misrepresented himself as an “exorcist,” CTTK is not wise in continuing to defend him.
They need to stop. Now.
If CTTK believes the Bishops’ statements are erroneous, unclear or rooted in improper methodology, the 1983 CIC has provisions relevant to these matters:
Can. 212 §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
I strongly encourage CTTK to take advantage of the law and write to the two Bishops and seek clarification. I would add, however, that this should have been done before publishing the present statement.
Let me be clear: CTTK, knock it off.