«By Bro. Peter Dimond ****NOTE: This article concerns our recent lawsuit with Eric Hoyle, which we won. All of his fraudulent, false and mortally ...»
Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 26-29: “Q. And to the extent that they have people within their organization that adhere to their teachings and follow their leadership, those individual members of the Benedictine Confederation would also be heretics in your view? A. I believe that question requires some inquiry into the knowledge and intentions of the individuals in the organization… Q. Okay. I asked whether or not someone who is a member of the Vatican Two church – in your view those individuals are non-Catholics, is that correct? A. As I was trying to say before, the matter can’t be stated in my opinion so bluntly as that… Q. Okay. And if an individual attends Mass regularly at a church that associates with and adheres to the Vatican Two church or religion that you referred to, is such an individual Catholic? A. I believe that the judgment of that matter cannot be made on the basis of the simple fact that they attend a certain church. Q.
What if they attend a church and take communion and have the sacraments at a Vatican Two church, does that make them non-Catholic? A. I believe it depends on their knowledge and intentions and that it would be possible for such a person to be Catholic.” While the theological vagaries of Eric Hoyle involved constant alterations of his positions and doubts concerning many of the matters described above, one point about which Hoyle claimed to remain steadfast during the period after he departed MHFM was his rejection of the legitimacy of the Vatican II sect. Obviously while Hoyle resided at MHFM, he fully agreed with us that the Vatican II sect is not Catholic. He did not leave to become a member of the Vatican II sect, but rather to become a radical schismatic. Thus, it would be expected that he would remain consistent with his position that the Vatican II Church is not the Catholic Church, and that its leaders and heretical members hold no authority or position in the Catholic Church or in a Catholic order. However, as we saw above, Hoyle denied that position in the lawsuit (e.g., when he specifically declared that all the members of the Vatican II “O.S.B.” are the legitimate members). This should prove, once and for all, to any who might have entertained doubts on this point, that Eric Hoyle is a despicable character with no credibility. Indeed, the review of a document containing his twisted thoughts confirms this point.
HIS DIABOLICAL “THOUGHTS ON THE OSB” DOCUMENT
One of the most revealing examples of Hoyle’s apostasy, dishonesty and, in particular, his ability to self-deceive came in a document he authored during the lawsuit called, Thoughts on the Order of St.
Benedict (OSB). In this privately-composed document, which Hoyle e-mailed to a “friend” but was eventually forced to turn over to us, Hoyle attempts to rationalize his decision to recognize as legitimate the Vatican II sect’s “Benedictines.” Eric Hoyle actually convinces himself that he’s not lying, committing sin, denying the faith or committing apostasy when he recognizes the Vatican II sect’s “Benedictines” as legitimate FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LAWSUIT AGAINST MHFM, even though he personally doesn’t believe they are the true Benedictines!
Hoyle convinces himself it’s justified to say the Vatican II sect’s Benedictines are the legitimate members of the O.S.B. because, according to him, they are such “in the eyes of US law,” even though they are not “in the sight of God.” According to Hoyle, it’s permissible to declare as true in a legal case that which is not true in the eyes of God.
Eric Hoyle, Thoughts on the Order of St. Benedict (OSB): “If a social club changes its beliefs and practices, it does not change its name or legal identity. US law treats religious groups the same way, even if their beliefs and practices change substantially. So, in US law, the Vatican II OSB retains its name. The Court presumes that the commonly-acknowledged OSB [i.e., the Vatican II OSB] is the legitimate OSB. I cannot prevent this, and I will not withdraw my suit because of it… So, I do not encourage or agree with the idea that the persons commonly acknowledged as OSB are legitimately such in the sight of God. I accept the presumption that they are such in the eyes of the US law.” Before I expose the tortured and truly devilish reasoning behind this conclusion, note that Hoyle was asked about this heretical document during his deposition. He confirmed that he indeed
Deposition of Plaintiff Eric Hoyle, Feb. 8, 2011, pp. 293-296: “Q. Take a look at Exhibit 44.
Right there. This is an attachment to an e-mail that you sent to Bridget… regarding thoughts on the Order of Saint Benedict. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. You prepared this document? A.
I believe so. Q. At the end of the second block of paragraphs in the middle of the page you write, so I do not encourage or agree with the idea that the persons commonly statement? A. I do. Q. And OSB refers to the Order of Saint Benedict? A. Yes.
acknowledge as OSB are legitimately such in the sight of God. Do you see that … Q. Let me be clear. I want to back up here. You say Benedictines who are commonly acknowledged. In other words, you’re referring to the Vatican Two Benedictines, right? A.
Yes. That’s what I’m referring to here, yes. Q. And you’re saying that you don’t encourage or agree with the idea that they’re legitimately Benedictine in the sight of God, right? A. That’s what I said here, yes.” When he wrote this document in 2008, Hoyle did not realize it would become public. It’s a remarkable insight into the disastrous effects of spiritual blindness to realize that Eric Hoyle convinced himself that there is no problem, but a consistency, in the position described above. Bro.
Michael and I frequently remarked in wonder about the staggering depth of spiritual blindness with which God punished Hoyle as a result of his schism; for Hoyle, who naturally speaking has intelligence, doesn’t see the problem in his conclusion, even though it’s so obvious. 4 Let’s refute and expose his rationale. If it were not a sin, but justified, to say you believe something to be true because it is true in the eyes of a country’s law, even though it is false in the sight of God, then the early Christians could have justifiably worshipped the Emperor and the false gods of the Romans; for the Emperor and the false gods of the Romans were the true and legitimate gods in the eyes of the Empire’s law, but they were false in the eyes of God. In fact, the Empire’s laws even compelled people to worship the Emperor and the false gods of the Romans. So, if Hoyle’s course of action were justified, there was no need for martyrdom in the early Church. The Christians could have, like Hoyle, walked in, worshipped the false gods and declared within themselves: “Yes, I will not withdraw my incense from them because they are the true gods in the sight of the Empire’s law, even though I do not encourage or agree with the idea that such gods are legitimate in the sight of God.” Obviously anyone who followed such a course would have denied Christ and become an apostate, just like Hoyle did in saying that he believed all the apostate members of the Vatican II sect’s religious order are the true and legitimate members. Any honest and clear-thinking Catholic can see that Hoyle’s position is evil, dishonest, heretical and apostate. It is the position of a liar – a man who justifies almost everything he does, at least when it comes to a dispute with us. Acknowledging false gods would never be justified. It doesn’t matter what a law says. What matters is what is true, and that means what is true in God’s sight.
Other examples of his staggering blindness can be seen in his amazing contradictions with respect to his financial claims in this case (more on these in a bit). He was apparently oblivious to the massive inconsistencies in his (false) story.
Furthermore, under Hoyle’s diabolical reasoning, you could answer a question in a legal case about whether you believe abortion is okay by stating that you believe it is; for abortion is not wrong in the eyes of the US law, even though it is murder in the sight of God. Does anyone fail to see the devilish blindness that allows such false reasoning? It should be obvious. Hoyle’s adoption of this false reasoning further demonstrates that he is a liar and a master at self-deception – i.e., at convincing himself that he is justified when he is not simply in order to be right. 5 It should also be emphasized that Hoyle’s apostate recognition of the Vatican II sect’s “Benedictines” came in response to a question about which persons and groups he believes are the true and legitimate members of the Order of St. Benedict. It was not a commentary about a legal decision that was reached by a US court of law many years ago; and in fact, no court could ever reach a decision on that matter; for US law does not recognize any one religious group as true, thus refuting the premise of Hoyle’s false argument, the one which served as the genesis of his apostate rationale.
We first saw the potential of Hoyle’s dishonesty when he resided at MHFM. Specifically, it was his penchant for convincing himself that he is factually correct or justified when he is actually factually incorrect or unjustified.
We had asked him to read over the book, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation, for typographical errors and similar mistakes. We only wanted clear typos and similar mistakes. He read it over carefully, and spotted some good ones. However, probably as a result of pride, he went way overboard and listed many things as errors which were not errors. In a response e-mail, we listed ten examples of things he listed as errors which were not errors, and we explained why they were not errors. Many months later, in a conversation about a different matter, those “ten errors” came up. Hoyle admitted that for a long time he had convinced himself that we were wrong about all ten of the points we corrected him about, but that he had been lying to himself. He said that he had convinced himself they were errors, despite the fact that they were not; but he now realized that we were right about all ten, or at least nine out of ten. We were puzzled, shocked, and disappointed that he would be so dishonest; for up to that time we considered him honest. We didn’t understand why or how he would convince himself he was right when knew he wasn’t?! That was a mystery I personally did not understand. He explained that since his pride was injured by our refutation of the “ten points,” he convinced himself he was correct and that we were wrong, even though the facts showed otherwise. He admitted that he deceived himself in order to satisfy his pride, in order to “be right.” Thinking back on the way he articulated it, with the full expectation that his explanation was comprehensible, it now becomes clear that it was something he probably did frequently and thought others did as well. I did not understand how a Catholic could do such a thing, for it is not a practice I employ. But since he acknowledged his mistake, and we considered him a fellow Catholic, we moved on. Contrary to the opinion of some, we are forgiving. However, after he left the monastery, fell into radical schism and sued us, it became clear that that little episode actually provided great insight into his soul: his true motives, his modus operandi, and his dark character. For the same dishonest practice of justifying almost everything he does – of convincing himself he is right when he clearly is wrong – was at work when he convinced himself that he could try to steal MHFM’s funds, and then claim MHFM was criminal; that money he donated to MHFM was actually stolen from him; that MHFM violated a written agreement that didn’t exist; that something can be true for the purpose of a lawsuit, even though it is a false in the eyes of God; that he is somehow justified in recognizing the Vatican II “Benedictines” as legitimate, despite claiming to anathematize any communion with the Vatican II Church, solely in order to continue a lawsuit against MHFM. He is, sadly, an abominable liar at heart.
I would be remiss in moving away from the “Thoughts on the Order of St. Benedict” document without mentioning that Hoyle e-mailed it to his radical schismatic friend named Bridget. She’s another example of someone who became convinced of the sedevacantist position after reading and viewing MHFM material, but through pride and bad will became a radical schismatic. This evil woman – one could call her Bridget the Apostate – actually helped convince Hoyle that it was not a denial of the faith to say the Vatican II “Benedictines” are the true ones for the purpose of the lawsuit against MHFM! Hoyle, being unsure of basically every position he adopts, naturally wanted her opinion. Of course, since Bridget claimed to reject the Vatican II sect, one would have expected her to say: “No, in the lawsuit you must not acknowledge the Vatican II sect’s ‘Benedictine’ order as true, even if it means dropping the case.” But no, she instructed Hoyle that it’s not a denial of the faith to acknowledge the Vatican II “Benedictines” as true! Of course not: it’s not a denial of the faith if it concerns an attempt to bring down Bro. Michael Dimond, Bro. Peter Dimond and Most Holy Family Monastery; but any other time it would be mortal sin and heresy.
For such dupes of the Devil, acknowledging the Counter Church somehow becomes justified when it concerns an effort against Most Holy Family Monastery. Frankly, that’s how evil these radical schismatics are and how much they have been influenced by Satan to hate us and our work.
Needless to say, even though she was already a schismatic, by encouraging Hoyle in his apostasy Bridget became the Apostate as well.
ERIC HOYLE’S MASSIVE CONTRADICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO HIS FINANCIAL CLAIMS
For another confirmation that Eric Hoyle has no credibility, consider that Hoyle admitted under oath that when he approached a New York State Trooper to have us arrested for “theft,” he didn’t know if he had a legal right to any of the money he tried to have us arrested for supposedly stealing.