|
Financial Assistance requested
REV. DAVID C. TROSCH
July 8, 1999 Most Rev. Oscar H. Lipscomb The Catholic Center P. O. Box 1966 Mobile, Alabama 36633 Archbishop Lipscomb, Thank you for your reply of September 15th. Our conversation of May 19th took place on the way to the afternoon conference at the chapel. The walk from the chapel, being a fair distance from the living quarters, gave us ample time for our conversation. At the close of our discussion you specifically agreed to enumerate specific statements that I had made that you wanted me to repudiate. You concluded with the comment that you would consider making specific references to Church doctrine to support your positions. If you continue to assert that this is not according to your recollection, then I ask you now to clearly list your opposition to statements I have made, and, I further ask you to reference specific statements to specific Church doctrine. Your practice of making generalized statements without reference to specifics is meaningless. NOTE: Your assertion that my position is “that it is justifiable homicide to kill known abortionists,” is false. My position has always been, and remains, that the actions of Michael Griffin and Paul Hill – in direct defense of innocent people in the only manner believed by them to be effective in the defense of the many scheduled to be murdered on those days against known and practicing unrepentant assassins who were about to enter secure killing locations which were publicly advertized as such – were in accordance with justice and the right of every innocent person to have protection against unjust aggressors. The great commandment carries the statement to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Priority of love must always be given to the innocent, not the acknowledged and unrepentant guilty. It is the innocent, and those who have become innocent through heartfelt contrition, who enter Heaven, not the unrepentant guilty. It is my belief that the direct consequence of your failure to support right reason has been the loss of millions of lives during these past five years. The only authority for the position you have taken can only be seen as resting solely upon your office as bishop, and not upon any doctrine of the Church. To my knowledge I have reasonably refuted – using sound reasoning, Scripture and other doctrines of the Church – all of your formal statements in opposition to my position. While I and Catholics of my age were brought up to give almost worshipful respect to the person and words of the man holding the office of bishop, I have since found this position to be counterproductive to faith. I follow the pattern that primacy of obedience should always be given to God. The teachings of God are best known through formal Church doctrine as found in Sacred Scripture and explained or expanded upon by the councils of the Church, and by formal universal papal teachings concerning faith and morals. Then, in proper order, I give respect and obedience to teachings and persons of lesser rank. I make a series of presentations in this regard on my Internet web pages beginning with the one located at: http://www.trosch.org/for/cathchur.htm In seminary one of the professors set up a debate between another seminarian and myself. One of us took the position of Calvin, the other of Swingli. I was given materials which, after study, led me to believe that I had the upper hand in the debate. The other student was privately told not to respond to any argument I made, but was simply to smile knowingly. While at the time I did not appreciate the lesson, I now understand it thoroughly. It seems that a knowing no response is the modus operandi of many liberals in today’s Church. President William Clinton has illustrated additional patterns for circumventing truth: 1. Avoid in any manner possible the giving of direct responses to questions which are asked that one does not want to answer. 2. And, if questioning is persistent then either get angry, 3. state that one does not remember – even though one is known to have an excellent memory 4. or, make it obviously plain that one is going to utilize available time by repeating statements that are not responsive to the questions being asked 5. and, when deemed necessary, refuse to answer at all. Your statement that my positions are incompatible with Catholic life and teaching, is common to the generalized statements you often make. Such statements – in opposition to specific positions either supported by Sacred Scripture and other authentic teachings, or to clear logical argumentation – are irresponsible unless bolstered by more than general statements or personal opinions. I agree with the position stated in your letter of November 15, 1993 that, an authentic interpretation of Catholic teaching coming from a bishop in union with the Holy See does represent “authoritative teaching.” The key words as I see them are, “in union with the Holy See.” Unless being in union with the Holy See means something other than being in union with the formal teachings of the Holy Church I fully agree with your statement. Over the centuries there have been numerous bishops who have practiced evil or been in heresy. I hope that your position is not that one should agree with or be obedient to a bishop of any rank whose commands are evil or heretical. Your recollection, of your final words to me, is at odds with my recollection as stated in my previous correspondence. For this reason I believe that all communications in the future should be in written form until such time as mutual trust can be reestablished. Concerning your statement of September 9, 1994, the only document I am able to associate with this date is your Keynote Address to the Florida Conference of Pro-Life Coordinators which took place on that date in Pensacola, Florida. The text of your document, entitled UNJUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE, together with my commentary in opposition to your positions, to which you have never responded, is located on my web-site at: http://www.trosch.org/wri/ohl-tp3.htm Your reference to the damage I have done is again an unsupported general statement to which it is impossible to make a direct response. However, the position that each year in the United States over one million innocent people are murdered by surgical abortion, and, according to Pharmacists for Life, ten times that number are murdered by chemical and mechanical means is verifiable (Worldwide this amounts to 50 million and 500 million respectively each year). My Catholic moral principles lead me to believe that great guilt accompanies your inaction (your indifference) to the evil of abortion. When I began this letter, it was not my intention to respond in this way, but it seems necessary. Great guilt accompanies the worldwide inaction of yourself and other bishops in regard to the evil of abortion. There are many ways to oppose the evil of abortion, but bishops have shown more interest in matters of liturgical window dressing and comparatively minor social issues than in life and death issues relating both to body and spirit. The documents you were going to FAX, concerning Pope John Paul, have not been received, nor have I been contacted in regard to any problem in transmission. Hopefully, should you ever get around to faxing or mailing them, they will include specific refutation of some position I have presented. I am now and have always been open to being shown that I am wrong in regard to any presented position. For over a year now I have made an open offer, on my web-site, to pay for any doctrinal or rational argument that refutes a theological position on my web-site (parameters for consideration on web-site). To date there has not been a single taker. Among the thousands who have been on my site there have been those who have expressed strong acceptance, and, those who have cursed and used foul language to oppose what they have seen or read. There are also some who have asked me to clarify points and others who have sought advice in regard to authentic Church doctrine on questions of faith and morals. As you have placed me in the position of not being an authorized representative of the Church, I have endeavored, as I always have as a priest, to reference formal doctrines and Canon Law in my responses to questions when deemed constructive. As far as the use of my photograph showing me in Roman Collar on my web-site, it is my understanding that your (unjust) removal of my faculties did not remove me from the priesthood. Unless additional action is taken against me, wherein my priesthood is removed, I will continue to present myself as a priest. You should have noted that the page with my photograph carries the statement that my faculties have been removed, albeit unjustly. Therefore, I see your concern as mute. If your distress for the lives of unrepentant unjust Judges and Justices was matched by your concern for the lives of innocent preborn children, there would be a reason to examine your discomfiture as having some genuineness. Did not John the Baptist and Jesus Himself utter warnings against the Scribes and Pharisees, many of whom were priests holding high office?
► When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Mt. 3:7 ► I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Mt. 5:20 ► Jesus said to them, "Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Mt. 16:6 ► "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Mt 23:25 Your statement, “the intent and judgement on your part is unmistakable,” in regard to my letter sent to Judge Raymond Novak is mistaken. You seem unable to ascertain the difference between “intent and judgement” and the Spiritual Works of Mercy, “instruct the ignorant,” and “convert the sinner.”
• I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 1Cor. 4:14 • Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, as in all wisdom you teach and admonish one another, singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Col. 3:16 • Do not regard him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother. 2 Thes. 3:15 Your intention of having me stay at the Abbey for a period of at least a month was not conveyed to me. In fact, your letter of August 23rd instructing me to report to St. Bernard Abbey on August 24th indicated that, concerning the future, you would be speaking with me on August 28th. As expressed to you in my letter of September 14, 1993 I had expected you would have contacted me at least by early in that week. Your letter of September 17, 1993 at least indirectly confirms my understanding as you apologized for the original timetable of our meeting being displaced. Your letter of September 17th failed to set a date for a meeting. As per your instructions I arrived at St. Bernard’s on August 24th, and did not leave there until September 20th as referred to in your letter of October 29, 1993. It is easy to calculate, via inclusive dates, that I was at the Abbey for four weeks and not the two weeks which you referred to in your recent letter. You stated that you sent me to the Abbey for prayerful reflection. Your presumption that I had not already reflected carefully and prayerfully is ludicrous. I believe that if you were being honest, the real reason you sent me away was to keep the press away from me while you pondered your own position on the subject. While such may have been your early reasoning, it soon became evident that you were more interested in the perception of the many humanistic and improperly educated Catholics and others who were calling for my dismissal than in truth or justice. It seems that the Church as a whole has long been in denial in regard to the high number of de jure Catholics who have been involved with abortion in one manner of another. The hierarchy is also in denial as to the great damage it is doing to present and future members of the Church by teaching humanism either directly, or by reason of silence. Your first effort at presenting support for your position against my statements did not come until I received your letter of October 29, 1993. You attached a document prepared by Father Michael J. Walsh and stated you were awaiting a second paper, done at your request, by Father John Boyle. The 2nd document you published in the diocesan newspaper on November 19th. Your cover letter sending me an advance copy was dated November 15th, exactly four months after the date of the publication of the cartoon concerning the philosophical question of Justifiable Homicide in the Mobile Press Register. It took you four months to find a position – received from Father Boyle, a classmate, whom you termed as being a professional theologian and “a valued collaborator in the work of the Committee on Doctrine of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops” – which you accepted as your official position, having found that it more than met your expectations. My interactive rebuttal to your published position, that you never attempted to refute, can be found on my web-site at: http://www.trosch.org/wri/ohl-rebu.htm You state that you find my request for “back pay, allowances and expenses” to be inconceivable. These requests are based upon a desire for justice and need. Your knowledge of my “considerable personal resources” is faulty. And, the last thing I would expect or want from you is charity. Your tone is similar to the accusatory tone of your chancellor, Father G. Warren Wall, when he questioned me concerning my acquisition of land (on which I am currently living by force of necessity). It had been presented to him that I had taken advantage of a mentally ill man. If you would care to examine this man, while he is still alive, or my current financial condition, on which I am apparently supposed to rely upon for the rest of my life if I remain faithful to my informed conscience, please now do so. I request that formal testimony now be taken if you retain any doubts. Anything which I say, or do, is open to examination though I in no sense of the word claim perfection. The problem seems to be finding someone who is open and honest enough to give me a fair opportunity for justice. As has been demonstrated in Federal Court, a trial from which you had yourself excused from giving testimony, I respond openly and honestly to questions asked. By the way, the abortionist who sued me, lost his case, and finally gave up his appeal. He sold his abortion clinic, moved to the area of Washington, D.C., and opened up a weight loss clinic. However, I have been given to understand that he still does abortions on the side. No doubt that this is to earn extra money in order to keep up his expensive life style. Sincerely in Christ, Fr. David C. Trosch
cc: Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan 3339 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20008-3687 |