Talk:Leonard Feeney

Untitled

Please dont substitute a non Wiki article over this article as it sits, instead help work to make this article better. Dominick 22:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for Improvements

Why not: add a section on Feeney's extensive anti-semitic writings, and link to other wiki articles on the contemporary history of anti-semitism in the US and in the Catholic Church

• • • The words “Feeneyite” and “Feeneyism” are very derogatory words used to label people. Labeling people has a very sinister end and final resolution. Unless you intend to exterminate/murder us, then may I suggest that you target a different group to hate? 04-26-2008.

To parts could be added to the end - Last End & Feeneyites.

The section "Last End" should discuss the controversy over and circumstances of Feeney's reconciliation.

A Feeneyite has informed me that Bishop Reilly of Worcester has regularized the faction of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary founded by Fr. Feeney residing at 282 Still River Rd, Still River, MA. This needs to be verified.

The section "Feeneyites" should record the division among the Feeneyites into some three or four autocephalous factions (Still River, Richmond, NH; Vienna, OH and Monrovia, CA), and reasons for their disagreements. Alternatively, Feeneyite should be erected into a separate page.

There is also need to link him to other subjects and persons within Wikipedia with a "See Also" tag. And the "External Links" can be broadened and subdivided into pro-, anti- and neutral websites / pages.

WikiSceptic 15:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice work so far! Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

rv vandalism by 24.60.48.111

"But, of course this is self-contradictory and obviously false." Comments like that do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Try again to make your edits NPOV. JG of Borg 05:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

objectivity

It would seem the article lacks the objectivity an encyclopaedia should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.175.138 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

added npov tag, the fact that it's missing anything after the schism leaves it unbalanced--Samuel J. Howard 03:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article lacks objectivity in that the responses from Father Feeney to his summons to Rome were (at least) arguably allowable (by Canon Law) explanations for disobedience. The page should quote the context and purpose of his letters as acceptable replies to the authority of the Church when dealing with refusal of obedience based upon dictates of conscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.67.24 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Fr. Feeney was not excommunicated by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII. This is false. Archbishop Cushing of Boston, MA did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.221.168 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This article plagiarizes the article written by sedevacantist group leader Bishop Clarence Kelley, of the SSPV. The original can be found here: http://www.ihm-church.org/PDF/003_The%20Case%20of%20Fr.%20Leonard%20Feeney.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.212.210 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I purged the copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Amendments

The following parts of the article need clarification:

"The doctrine Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, (hereafter abbreviated EENS), thus became the controversial center of Fr. Feeney's doctrines. In time, his name was so closely associated with it that many came to believe that his eventual excommunication was due to his rigid version of this doctrine, which is incorrect. As we have already pointed out, even The New York Times reported that Fr. Feeney was 'excommunicated... for preaching that there was no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.'"

The author of this passage writes that Father Feeney was NOT excommunicated for his teaching EENS, but then quotes a New York Times article saying he WAS excommunicated for that reason. If the author meant, in the first part, that Father Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience and not for his teaching of EENS, then the Times quotation contradicts the author's meaning.

Then there is this sentence under the headline "Communal Raising of Children":

"The decision to raise the children communally was the solution to that problem, it is what lay behind the decision."

This sentence will need to be re-written. Perhaps the meaning was, "The decision to raise the children communally was not the problem, it was what lay behind the decision." Even if this were the meaning, it is still not clear from the context of the article why it is relevant.Dylan23 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Father Feeney was ordered by Cardinal Richard Cushing to stop teaching that non-Catholics were automatically damned. Feeney refused to do so. Thus, both statements are true: Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience and for teaching EENS. Jhobson1 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Poverty center article

I suggest that people read the Article that is contained in the link to the Poverty Center. It is hardly an example of good reporting and is amazingly factually inacurate. Not that I or anyone that I know agrees with this group talked about but if Wiki is supposed to be NPOV then putting up links to to crazy sites should not be a goal. I can post a thousand links to articles that written by people who agree with this group if that is all it takes. The article I am talking about specifically mentions a "former" catholic complaining. Well let me see, a Former Catholic has no room to complain about this group or Catholics in general. They are like people who chop their own arms off and then go around insulting everyone who still has arms. Also, the idea put forth in the article that the group is "anti-semetic" I just don't see as being justified unless there is more information that they are not giving us. Oposing Jews on Religious matters is the obligation of every Catholic, just as we are bound by duty to opose Athiest, Protestants, or Muslims. If Catholics really believe that we have the ONE TRUE FAITH then obviously we would want to opose any FALSE Faith. The article doesn't say that this group is advocating violence against Jews or racist actions against Jews or any kind of Discrimination against Jews. In fact, this group worships a JEWISH MAN as GOD. What they opose is Jews not accepting their own Savior. This is the official position of the Catholic Church even in the Second Vatican Council. And in the article, what proof is mentioned that this group is anti-semetic; the fact that a "former" Catholic thinks so.

I say remove that part of the article. Unless someone can give me a very good reason to keep it up then I myself will take it down even though I am not a member of this community. Keep in mind, if you do convince me to keep it up, I will begin to add links to sites that do accuratly and factually report about this group and I will amend the article as nessicary to show that this group and Catholics in general are not now, nor have we ever been Anti-Semetic. This charge is so ludicrous that it almost makes me laugh until another bomb goes off outside a Church because of this lie. Catholics speak a Semetic Language called SYRIAC. The Arabs and Jews want to take our Semetic language away from us and expell us from the Middle east. So then who is really being Anti-Semetic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.94.29.200 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

fatherfeeney.org

I've removed fatherfeeney.org from the External links. Although its large collection of Feeney writings could be a valuable resource, there are two serious problems:

• Feeney's writings are presented within the framework of a hate site. See Is there a Feeneyite-Neo-Nazi/White-Supremacist Connection?.
  • While opponents of Feeney argue that he was an extremist and an anti-Semite, linking to a site that presents his writings in that context could be seen as POV or a devious way to present such a view.
  • No way to verify whether the site presents all Feeney's writings or just those which agree with its own agenda.
• copyright: who owns the copyright to his writings and have they given the site permission to pubish them online? The site has seems deliberately anonymous and undocumented. WP:EXT#Restrictions on linking

jnestorius^(talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Who replaced Fr. Feeney in Harvard

heard that Feeney was replaced by an Opus Dei priest... Bill Poras something like that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.61 (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Needed: pre-1949 material

The article is unbalanced by the focus on offensive conspiracist excerpts from The Point. I have tried to add more material about the Feeney phenomenon unrelated to anti-Semitism (that this was a factor is undeniable, and so I have left in representative quotations). The precedent seen with Richard Williamson is that such articles should not degenerate into a "greatest hits" of the subject's bigotry.

Given Feeney's high profile in the American Church before he fell from favour, some material on his earlier publications/reputation/career would be useful. I imagine there must be relevant material available on one of the various St Benedict's websites. 13afuse (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

when did Fr Feeney found the Slaves?

This article says after his excommunication which was in 1953. The site for the Slaves says 1949 (Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary)--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Leonard Feeney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101224124019/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10724 to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10724

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leonard Feeney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000311121352/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

incorrect statement of Feeney's doctrine

"He took the position that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are unavailing and that therefore no non-Catholics will be saved" connects two unrelated things he taught. He taught that according to the Church, prior to the discovery of the New World, the Catholic Church taught that to be saved you absolutely needed to be baptized and submit to the Roman Pontiff (the Pope of the Church). When they realized there were whole peoples who had been in the Americas the whole time whom they'd never preached to, many in the Catholic Church softened the teaching. But if you want the whole teaching as it was defined in the Council of Florence (Catholics believe Councils are infallible):

> It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

It's pretty clear, from the outside, that the Church changed the teaching in an unofficial capacity (they couldn't officially change it because the thing I posted above was fully authoritative), and then when Feeney wouldn't play along, his Jesuit superiors and many in Rome engaged in a smear campaign. He was excommunicated for failing to appear for trial in Rome. He was told to stop teaching what he was teaching, but no one in authority dared to call him a heretic, because he was just repeating a pretty clear proclamation of the Church that outside its bounds, no one can be saved.

Now, the fact that he disbelieved in baptisms of desire and blood would not be the cause of non-catholics not being saved. The cause of non-Catholics not being saved is committing mortal sin. According to the Church, Baptism (and Confession if you sin mortally after baptism) clears out your mortal sins. Now, according to the Council of Trent (which is also authoritative for Catholic doctrine) a person who vows to be baptized, such as someone studying to become Catholic, can be freed from his mortal sins by that vow (it actually says he can be "justified," more precisely). This is mentioned very briefly in the Council documents. In other parts of the Council decrees, it affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. THIS is where Father Feeney's particular ideas get interesting, which I think should be included in the article about him. Feeney says that no one can get to heaven without the Sacramental Baptism of water, while affirming Trent that a catechumen (person preparing for baptism) who dies before baptism couldn't go to hell because he is justified by his vow to be baptized. He sees there is a contradiction here, since the catechumen can't go to hell because he is justified, but he can't go to heaven, because he does not have the character that baptism imprints on a soul. Therefore, he concludes, such people DO NOT EXIST. He concludes that those who are justified by their vow to get baptized, will get baptized. He also concludes that anyone who made the vow and died without being baptized made the vow invalidly, because if they had been justified by the vow, then God would have led them to sacramental baptism.

Thus, the interesting thesis of Fr. Feeney is that Baptism of Desire never occurs in real life because if it did, it would glitch the system, and God has enough power to prevent that from happening. Likewise, he concluded that a baptism of blood is a sort of pious legend which was, indeed, never taught in a dogmatic pronouncement like the one above. He asserts that a catechumen who would not allow himself to be martyred without procuring a baptism (it's like a ten second ordeal to get baptized if you're about to die), such that a "baptism of blood" would only work IF the catechumen had received sacramental baptism.

THESE are the reasons Feeney is an interesting figure in Catholicism. When his excommunication was lifted, he was not instructed to recant anything. This shows that, in the eyes of the Pope (the one who de-excommunicated him), he did not hold to any heretical beliefs. Therefore Feeneyism is not a Catholic heresy, but a doctrine that is acceptable for a Catholic to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CD:C002:5B7F:24CC:9383:B998:2B26 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see baptismofdesire.com King Pius (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Source selection

A large portion of the references on this page, both cited and those that are missing, come from a book written by someone who was affiliated with the order that Leonard Feeney founded. Thomas Mary Sennot was a Brother in the M.I.C.M.. The book appears to have been written with an angle to defend Fr. Feeney, but is presented here as being from an objective, neutral source. This article ought to be reworked and the non NPOV content should be either removed or moved to a new section that properly frames it as being from his defenders. --Jack17212 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)