With all due respect to Mr. Chabot and the “anonymous” individual who wrote this article, I’m afraid you are still not getting the point about the SPLC. Please allow me (without “moderating” me to death) to get my point across on this most important subject. Your premise should be: Why are the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary” on the SPLC Blacklist? Why is your organization so offensive that you are listed as a hate group along with a bunch of neo-Nazi and other social retards who DESERVE to be on the SPLC hit list? Please use the logic you must have inherited from Saint Thomas Aquinas to resolve this issue.

I certainly do not agree with everything SPLC does or says, but they are correct to keep an eye on some of the right wing extremist groups in the United State, and probably a few left wing extremist groups too. The point is: Where do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary fit into the hate group category? Logic (whatever that means these days) tells me that you need to convince SPLC that you should not be on their list. To do otherwise, all you tell me is that you are content to assume an unneeded martyr complex role of some kind.

I would very much like a response from someone on my comments. How about Mr. Chabot? What on earth does “A nefarious group becomes strong only in proportion to our neglect to expose it” mean? Once again, SPLC is correct in exposing and identifying real hate groups. Do you really think you should allow yourselves to sit back and be thrown in the same cell with neo Confederates and other idiots.

You people need to get off the SPLC hate list. This cannot be done by writing articles pointing out that some other group does not like them.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, SO PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM. Thanks.

Thanks for the response Brother Andre Marie. Like I said, the SPLC is hardly one of my “favorite” outfits. There ideology might very well be, and probably is anti-Christian etc. So, is this why Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are on their hitlist when other traditional Roman Catholic organizations are not. Why is it that your group in particular is on their list? What exactly are they accusing you of and why? However, someone (maybe the FBI is the appropriate organization) needs to keep an eye on real hate groups such as neo Nazis and neo Confederates. Once again, these outfits really are dangerous hate groups, and the SPLC is right to call them to public attention. But what is it that your group has specifically done to warrant being put in the same category.

With that said, you might not ever get off their list. The fact remains that SPLC is still a legitimate organization, and by putting you on their list of hate groups along with real social misfits should be an insult to you. I can only come to the “conclusion” that you must somehow believe that being persecuted by them is some sort of badge of honor.

Thanks again for the response anyway.

All I can say at this point is that if you are not going to get off the SPLC naughty list, then you have to act more like a militia outfit. Let me suggest some sort of beret for starters. I also recommend that you distribute a video showing you and the brothers and sisters doing some sort of close order drill while making the appropriate sounds with stell toed and heeled semi jackboots. Commands could be yelled out in German. Don’t reject riding around in motorcyles with side mounts and machine guns. This will really get the SPLC excited since such vehicles are vintage SS. And of course you need to be well armed with all of the latest combat knives and automatic weapons.

Of course you could drop most of the above, and become a left wing extremist militia with some sort of Che Guevara oriented getups but with a religious flare. Clearly, some sort of liberation theology would be in order here. In fact this might be just the direction you should take. Left wing militia groups are in short supply and high demand. Nevertheless, you are sure to stay on the SPLC list by taking a hard right. Going to the left might get you off it.

Finally, Brother Andre Marie, a logical answer. You just don’t care what the people at SPLC believe or think about anything. That settles it. That would have taken care of everything in the first place. Nevertheless, the SPLC serves a “good” purpose in identifying truly dangerous and real hate groups such as neo-Nazis etc. etc. No doubt they are a thorn in the side of many, but then so are neo Confederates and so on. On that note, the rant against the SPLC by “The Philosopher” was not very well written.

Dear Brother Andre Marie:

I just attempted to send you a response to your comment of 2:47 pm August 14th, 2009 and it did not even show up on the screen for moderation. If you would be so kind as to contact me by email I would appreciate it. I think we need to get things straightened out. If you feel that my comments have irritated you too much, then I can terminate my comments/contributions to your website, or you can expunge me from your website completely. However, I would like to have an understanding on this. Thanks.

The SBC keeps good company – Fr. Gruner, Michael Matt, Marian Horvath, et al. Viva Cristo Rey!

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in its Intelligence Report (2006) and other reports, needs to clarify what does it mean by the ‘Vatican Council II reforms’.
It has claimed that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Richmond, New Hampshire has rejected ‘Vatican Council II reforms’.
I e-mailed the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at St.Benedict Center, New Hamsphire, USA in the diocese of Manchester.They have confirmed that they accept Vatican Council II as a valid ecumenical council and that they are in full communion with the Catholic Church according to the dioceses of Manchester and Worcester.
An e-mail received from Brian Kelly, spokesman for the community, has stated, in response to questions:-

Quote:
Dear Lionel

Our community is in full communion with the Catholic Church, and always has been. We have not yet been given any formal canonical approbation, although, technically, we are a “private association of the faithful.” The diocese of Manchester is on record saying that we are Catholics, just as the Diocese of Worcester was previously. Sadly, this is not well known.

We are not now and never have been affiliated with the Society of Saint Pius X. We are disciples of Father Leonard Feeney, not Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Regarding Vatican II, we accept that it is a valid ecumenical Council of the Church. Many of its more ambiguous utterances are in need of further clarification in light of the previous magisterium. (This is by no means a radical utterance as it is accepted by many “conservatives,” as well as “traditionalists.”) We are gratified that the CDF has recently done this very thing in the case of the “subsistit in” question (see http://catholicism.org/an-interview-with-myself.html).

Brian Kelly

Saint Benedict Center
Post Office Box 627
Richmond, New Hampshire 03470
2007 Catholic Conference: August 17-19 (http://www.SbcConference.com)
Subscribe to «Ad Rem» (http://www.catholicism.org/ad-rem.html)

Fr. Leonard Feeney’s community in new Hampshire accepts Vatican Council II.
The SPLC needs to cite specific Church documents with references to ‘Vatican Council II reforms’ which it keeps mentioning often.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary’s teachings are in accord with that of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney 1949 referred to the Catholic ‘dogma’ and the ‘infallibile teaching’.
The dogma was the same teaching of the Council of Florence, the different popes,many saints and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary hold to the same teaching.
(from the website Cath Net)

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2010/04/letter-to-irs-re-southern-poverty-law.html

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-letter-to-southern-poverty-law.html

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-definition-of-racism.html