On Wed Aug 29, starting at 7pm, St John Neumann in Gaithersburg MD (my parish) conducted an evening of prayer for the victims of the clergy sex abuse. It was quite well-attended. It was valuable if only for the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, Rosary and Benediction. It started out with the exposition and a Gospel reading. After a short prayer, we were invited to adjourn to the parish center for the meeting.
When we got there, the chairs were arranged in circles with approximately 10 chairs in each circle. We just picked a circle and sat down. Each circle had a moderator who kept notes of general things said (without names or other identifying details). Before discussions began, the moderators passed out sheets listing "12 listening session guidelines". One is reproduced to the right. You might have to open this in its own window to read it, since it is small on the screen.
Most of the guidelines are decent enough, with respect to confidentiality and not being overly probing. But others raise red flags. Look at number 3: "There are no right or wrong statements." That's simply false. If someone were to have said that "homosexual relations are fine with the Church", we were supposed to let that ride? That did not happen in my group so happily I didn't have to confront that bogus guideline.
Guideline 6 is one with which I took strong issue in my circle. "Focus on feelings, not opinions". Two big things are very wrong with that, and the mindsets that they seem inculcate. First, we have the emphasis of feelings over opinions, that is, emotions over thoughts. Ladies and gentlemen, our society is increasingly becoming one that judges morality and situations by the emotional reverberations that they make on some people, as opposed to their objective merit. Even at that, the emotions of some (politically correct classes like gays or minorities) are valued over others. That is why we have the spectacles of some people being punished at law because their words seem offensive to others, regardless of the truth behind them. Our society values emotions over objective merit because it no longer believes in any objective truth. At the root of that rejection of objective truth is rejection of God Himself.
We also see in that "guideline" a put-down of thoughts and opinions that people might have regarding the scandals. As we were leaving, a group of us agreed that this guideline may have been an attempt to squelch real thought and conversation about the events of the past few weeks.
One point I made about this in the circle is that a "focus on feelings" would have as an immediate effect a paralysis, for if one turns in on one's own feelings and focuses on them, he/she will not be able to engage in actions that will be appropriate to the crisis that we face. Whether or not that was the intent of the writers of these guidelines, I have no way of knowing. However, they should have seen that would be a consequence of their suggestion.
I also made the point that our parish had a foretaste of this current scandal a little over six years ago, when our parish curate, Father Marcel Guarnizo, was thrown under the bus (yes, I used that phrase) for withholding Holy Communion from a flagrant lesbian. I gave a brief background as some in the group were relatively new to the parish and weren't informed about that debacle.
I'd be interested in hearing from others who participated in the listening sessions via the com box. I'd also be interested in learning whether or not other parishes in the Archdiocese of Washington had events similar to ours, and if so, whether or not they had similar guidelines.
I'll let this video speak for itself, but will post some other thoughts below it.
Speaking of "fugitive", he may not be the only one. Remember that "place of penance" that was posted yesterday? According to George Neumayr, the journalist that discovered it, the palatial hovel now looks rather deserted. In other words, is McCarrick joining Wuerl?
If all this is true, that means that we of the Archdiocese of Washington may soon be receiving a new prelate. All this "cloak and dagger" does lead me to believe that the replacement might well not be along the lines of Cupich or Tobin or McElroy. For all we know, exit strategies might be in the works for them, too. If nothing else, that would clear a lot of stench out of the air of US Churches.
A few weeks ago, after McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals, the pope ordered him to a life of prayer and penance. Generally when one thinks of that situation, one thinks of this penitential life being carried out in austere settings, in a place that is more cell than home. George Neumayr discovered the location of this "penitential cell", this place of austerity and mortification. Church Militant published the news, and here it is! Try not to let your heart ache too much for the erstwhile cardinal as he does penance for his crimes in the confines of this simple cell!
Quite the little hole in the ground, isn't it? 5,000 square feet, nine bedrooms, five bathrooms, and worth over $2 million. It has been in the possession of the archdiocese since the days of Cardinal Baum, but still - when I hear of this and also of that law firm that Wuerl just retained - to the tune of $50k per month - I find it increasingly hard to take seriously any requests for donations coming from the Archdiocese of Washington.
The address? It's 4110 Warren Street, in the neighborhood of American University. That's quite the tony area. So much for mortification and penance! I opined that McCarrick was probably taking "one for the team" and would be repaid via a comfortable retirement. Was that a good call, or what? The cabal was probably hoping, in this strategy, that we would be satisfied with McCarrick's removal and forget about pursing matters further. They couldn't have been more incorrect.
Now come reports of various individuals - including the Pope Emeritus - of Vigano's testimony being corroborated. The National Catholic Register's sources confirm that Pope Benedict XVI did indeed discipline the errant former cardinal McCarrick. Of course Pope Francis completely disregarded them and allowed McCarrick free reign and much influence in the process of selecting new bishops.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix released a statement that appears on the diocesan website. He knows Vigano and vouches for his honesty and character. He urges that "Vigano's testimony be taken seriously by all".
Msgr Jean-Francois Lantheaume, a former Nunciaoture official, vouched for Vigano's honesty. We have now been informed that Archbishop Vigano has fled and gone into hiding in fear for his life. His fear is understandable. Consider in his testimony he said that his two predecessors died "prematurely". Both? That's quite the coincidence. Also consider how two of the dubia cardinals both died within a short period of the dubia being released. These evil thugs in the Vatican seem to play for keeps.
The pope was in Ireland at the Wicked Mangling of Families event that was just winding down when Archbishop Vigano's testimony was made public. Today he flew home and gave another interview. The patterns of the past few years have shown that when the pope flies and talks with the reporters on that plane, nonsense often billows forth from his mouth. Today was no exception. The only difference is that it didn't take endless bloviation to reveal his inner mind.
Of course he was asked about his reaction to Vigano's revelations. Let's examine his remarks bit by bit.
"Read the statement carefully and make your own judgments". Who among us, if we were made aware of spurious accusations against us regarding some heinous crime, would simply tell the public to "make your own judgments"? I for one would react with outrage at my name being pilloried and slandered. Perhaps the pope can't - because the statement is not slander?
He believes in the "journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions". Look - either the statements are true, or they are false. They stand on their own factual merit - not upon some "journalistic capacity". Talk about a cop-out response!
This is quite similar to the cop-out that McCarrick tried initially when he said that he "didn't recall" that alleged episode of abuse. Many of us cannot remember everything we did thirty years ago, but we know damned well we did not rape children and we can say so with absolute certainty. Why couldn't McCarrick? Why couldn't the pope, this morning?
The pope's utterly dismissive attitude is contrasted to that of Cardinal Burke, who said that "the declarations made by a prelate of the authority of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be totally taken to heart by those responsible in the Church." The cardinal went on to call for a thorough investigation into these allegations.
In his homily today, Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler TX also called for an investigation, adding that he found the allegations to be credible. Lending weight to the credibility of the allegations is an account published by England's Catholic Herald. It recounts that Pope Francis reduced sanctions against a number of clergy abusers of minors. The article is from February of last year, but still it demonstrates an imprudent tendency of the pope to be lenient with those who pose threats to children. The article contrasts the pope's practice with that of Pope Benedict, who laicized about 800 priests and who hardly ever granted clemency to the abusers.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, former papal nuncio to the United States under Pope Benedict XVI, released a statement that said that Pope Francis participated in the cover-up for ex-cardinal McCarrick. Furthermore, he stated that Pope Benedict had laid sanctions on McCarrick but these were lifted after Cardinal Bergoglio became Pope Francis. Recall that McCarrick played a huge role in that election. Many other prelates, the "usual suspects" were named by Vigano as being part of the cover-up.
One certainly must wonder now if Pope Benedict XVI resigned under duress. I'll have more to say about this as I digest it. Meanwhile I link now to the LifeSiteNews article. It has the full English translation as well as links to downloadable pdfs; please download them for I can see where nefarious elements in the Church might want to pull these offline. There is speculation that this testimony may call into question the continuance of Francis' papacy; as well it should.
This afternoon a group of faithful Catholics gathered on the sidewalk in front of Our Lady Queen of the Americas Church. It's located on Embassy Row in Washington DC. They interceded for the resignation of Cardinal Wuerl and for a general cleansing of Holy Mother Church from all the sexual perversion and impurity that seems to have gripped a large number of our clergy, both priests and bishops. Why was that church chosen? Because Cardinal Wuerl resides in a penthouse atop the Church.
George Neumayr, Catholic investigative journalist and author of "The Political Pope", joined in that effort. He then attempted to attend the 5pm Mass inside that church - and was prevented from entering by the pastor, Father Alejandro Diaz. Neumayr recorded that encounter on his cell phone and posted it to Facebook. As Neumayr recorded it, he was quite astute in enunciating the various issues at play - with one exception. I'll point that out after you watch this encounter.
Notice that at the 0:56 mark, as Neumayr is talking, Diaz's lips are moving, as though he is muttering. Why? Is he praying? To whom or what is he praying? I cannot see how he's praying to God while acting in blatant disobedience to Church law and basic justice. What is going on? This is utterly bizarre, if not downright ominous.
There are those who might be frightened by occurrences such as this. While these do show the depths to which the evil gnomes in the clergy will sink, it also displays how frightened they are at the prospects that their gig is up. Please continue to pray your Rosaries and speak out. We can speak out against this miscarriage of justice by calling and/or emailing Diaz and letting him know that we are watching. Here is the contact info (note: you may have to translate it into English).
I recently came across a tome entitled "U.S. Jesuit Urges Catholics To Examine Attitudes Towards LGBT Community". I don't have time to correct every error in this pig-slop, so I'll home in on just a few. First, we examine these two paragraphs. Here they are as originally presented:
He urged people to examine their own attitudes and ask themselves whether they believe someone “is sinful because she’s lesbian, or more inclined to sin than a straight woman? Do you hold the parents ‘responsible’ for a gay teen’s orientation? Do you think a person is transgender person only because it’s ‘fashionable’?” he challenged. One of his recommendations for Catholic parishes and communities is not to reduce gays and lesbians to the call to chastity.
I'll now reprint it with comments interspersed in red.
He urged people to examine their own attitudes and ask themselves whether they believe someone “is sinful because she’s lesbian, or more inclined to sin than a straight woman? They certainly are more inclined to commit mortal sins of sexual perversions than would be straight people. Do you hold the parents ‘responsible’ for a gay teen’s orientation? If the parents in any way applaud or facilitate their children's dalliances with that mortal sin, they certainly are. Of course there are good parents who are most definitely heart-broken that their gay children are endangering their own immortal souls. Do you think a person is transgender person only because it’s ‘fashionable’?” he challenged. Irrelevant. Anyone who flirts with "being transgender" is playing God with his/her own person. One of his recommendations for Catholic parishes and communities is not to reduce gays and lesbians to the call to chastity. The call to chastity is not a "reduction". It is a command of God enjoined upon all persons. Those with a homosexual orientation are not exempt from that call on account of that orientation.
Like I said, I just don't have the time to unpack that entire mess. I will now point out the worst thing regarding that article. Where was it published? Was it published in "America"? No! How about Not-At-All Catholic Reporter? Again, no. It was published on the website of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Furthermore, it is an article circulated by the Catholic News Service, the official news arm of the USCCB. Over the past few days, Archbishop Lori et al have issued statements of regret regarding the PA grand jury report and McCarrick's ouster. I replied to them, saying that we'll know if he's serious if he purges the gay rot from St Matthew's on Loch Raven Blvd and St Theresa's in Severn. Now he needs to get it out of the Archdiocese's own website. Lots of people need to be fired.
From LifeSiteNews we read of Father Richard Terdine of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. He admitted to giving a 16-year old boy condoms and pornography. Yet he remained active in priestly ministry until just a few months ago. In the nearby Diocese of Allentown, Father Kevin Lonergan was arrested just weeks ago for sending nude pictures of himself to a 17-year old girl and assaulting her. He committed these crimes just last year.
So how do Cardinal Wuerl and others pretend that clerical sex abuse ended "decades ago"? How do they pretend that this "Dallas Charter" and other overly-vaunted protections are working?
From Church Militant we read of a Jesuit in the Vatican chiding an Ohio prosecutor for seeking the death penalty in relation to a murder that he is prosecuting. The Jesuit is Father Paul Mueller and the Ohio official is Joseph Deters, Prosecutor for Hamilton County, Ohio. Mueller is trying to bamboozle Deters into believing that 2000-year-old Church teaching no longer exists, owing to the way that Pope Francis is trying to mutate it.
A canon lawyer who spoke with Church Militant flat out said that Mueller is wrong and that he himself has committed canonical crimes of calumny and defamation against Deters. I'm just wondering when outfits such as "People for the American Way" and "Freedom from Religion Foundation" are going to rally to Deters' assistance. After all, aren't they all about "separation of church and state"? Or does that only work when the clergy is upholding actual (instead of imitation) Church teaching?
I looked around for more information in Mueller in addition to what is on the CM site. He is an author of sorts. His "scholarly" works include a book entitled, "Would You Baptize An Extraterrestrial?" Yeah, that should solve all the problems of the universe and quench the thirst of the human heart! One wonders what about this case would pique his interest since they are thousands of miles apart. That is its own mystery.
By the way - since Mueller is so quick to charge into this situation (in which he has no authority to do so), please point out to me all the times he has railed against Catholic politicians who support baby-murder and gay perversions. Please do so in the com-box, but be advised that I won't be holding my breath.
Speaking of the death penalty, this is an interesting read about why opponents of the death penalty among the clergy might have been predisposed to shield their perverted colleagues from the consequences of their mortal sins.
A few days ago, Pope Francis released an open letter regarding the sex abuse scandal perpetrated most infamously by Bishop McCarrick and all too many others. LifeSiteNews carries the full English text of that letter as well as an excellent analysis.
The pope states, without hesitation, that the culprit behind this squalid mess is...CLERICALISM! That's right! Nowhere in his tome is there one mention of the mortal sins of sodomy and other homosexual perversions. To be clear, girls were victimized too, but the great bulk of the attacks - at least 75% - were carried out against post-pubescent males. By definition, the attacks were homosexual in nature. Also notice that while we see the words "clerics" and "priests" mentioned, there is not one instance of the word "bishop" being uttered.
I call notice to this "gem" uttered by the pope: I invite the entire holy faithful People of God to a penitential exercise of prayer and fasting, following the Lord’s command. This can awaken our conscience and arouse our solidarity and commitment to a culture of care that says “never again” to every form of abuse.
If he were directing this statement solely to the bishops and others who engaged in these crimes and/or covered them up, I'd applaud it. But he isn't and that is one thing that demonstrates why this open letter is just another part of the "damage control". Quite a goodly portion of the laity are aware at this time and more are opening their eyes with each passing day. I daresay the chanceries are feeling the effects of our awareness as they see their collection revenues shrinking. Is this an attempt to shame us into resumption of our donations - so that more lavish lifestyles and/or payouts can be financed? The ones who need the "awakening of consciences" are those who pretend that "clericalism" is the root cause and not gay perversion.
As an aside, over twenty years ago I left a charismatic cult. After I left, I did copious amounts of reading on cults and thought reform so that I could understand the dynamics of what happened to me as a young adult. I learned that there are many varieties of thought-reform, and not all of them occur in the settings of a cult. One tactic of thought-reform is known as "blaming the victim". Basically it is used when the "leaders" of the cult abuse the rank-and-file members, and then direct them to blame the resultant pain on their own weakness, sinfulness, etc. This screed issued by the pope reeks of that tactic.
If the pope tried delicately to shut us up, not all bishops shared his desire for tact. Cardinal Sergio Obeso Rivera, a retired Mexican Archbishop, said some victims "who accuse men of the Church should be careful because they have long tails that are easily stepped on". One can only hope that this is merely an attempt to embarrass the victims. The only other possibility is that he issued a thinly-veiled threat of blackmail to the victims. As you read that article, please note that he was created a cardinal just recently. That means this current pope is responsible for his red hat. One consolation is that he is over the age of 80 so he cannot participate in the next papal conclave.
Over at the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter, we see Michael Sean Winters waxing apoplectic at the "anti-gay agenda". Of course he's always shilled for sodomy and now he's pitching a hissy-fit at the "diabolical craziness of Church Militant and others" because what we've warned about is now coming to light. And yes, we do want gay priests out of the priesthood. The Church, in her wisdom, has always excluded homosexuals from the priesthood, knowing that those so afflicted would be unsuited for the role of "alter Christus". Over 75% of these assault cases are homosexual in nature, despite the denials that Winters, the pope, etc try to use.
In their rantings against "clericalism". I think the pope et al are drafting a new definition of the word (getting back to thought-reform, that is a tactic known as "loading the language"). Might that definition be "ascribing responsibility of clerical and ecclesial sins to the faithful lay Catholics in the pews"?
IMPORTANT UPDATE - The state of Illinois is following Pennsylvania's lead and launching its own investigation into the Archdiocese of Chicago. I believe it was Chicago's Cardinal Cupich that concocted the "clericalism" schtick. The state of Missouri will also be investigating dioceses in that state. We might well have a RICO investigation upon us. The bishops might be kissing those federal funds (that is, our tax dollars) goodbye - or, as Cardinal Joseph Tobin might say, "nighty-night, baby bucks!"
Courtesy of LifeSiteNews, we have this clip of ex-cardinal McCarrick giving a talk in 2013 after the election of Pope Francis. Ponder these words in light of his downfall and his debauchery over the past several decades. Don't you think it interesting to hear him speak of the pope as the "pied piper"? And did you catch the "nephew" remark?
As you listen to this, keep in the back of your mind the USCCB's unceasing shilling for 1) amnesty for border-crashers and 2) open border. Might this offer a glimpse as to another potential motive for their stances? Makes sense to me! The perverts in the chanceries wouldn't want anything to prevent the growth of their "stables" now, would they?
Rob Schenck, a protestant minister, is widely known as a pro-life activist and leader from years back. He participated in a number of clinic rescues (blockading them) and for that has gone to jail quite a few times.
Schenck now sees abortion as a moral and ethical issue that should be resolved by "an individual and his or her conscience" — rather than by legislation."
"This is not a question for politicians," he says. "When your end goal is a political one, you will, without exception, exploit the pain and the suffering and the agony of those who face the issue in their daily reality, in their real life."
Schenck demonstrated two flaws in his thinking. First, no pro-life activist worthy of the title ever pretends that protection for babies is solely "a question for politicians", so I don't know what causes him to imply that. But while the legal front is not the only one on which we fight for the protection of babies, by the same token we can never pretend that law and politics can be neglected. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr himself recognized that when he said, "the law cannot make my white brother love me, but it can keep him from lynching me". The unborn child is a human being deserving of protection regardless of the capricious whims of his/her mother's "individual conscience".
The preceding sentence brings us to Schenck's second and even greater glitch in his thinking. Nowhere in that quote do we see any thought or concern given to the one who stands to lose his/her life - the baby. The words "baby" and "child" don't appear once in that quote or anywhere else in that interview. He whines about being "callous" to abortion-bound women's feelings. I submit that he has acquired a new callousness to the unborn child in deference to the mother's errant sentiments.
I checked Schenck's facebook page to see if perhaps NPR engaged in - shall we say - "embellishment" of this interview. Sadly, I saw no mention that NPR misquoted him, no sign of displeasure at how he was represented. He seemed to be in agreement with the interview report as presented.
In recent months I had noted on his page an inordinate desire to abridge our rights to self-defense to "reduce gun violence", and the promotion of amnesty for border-crashers. In other words, he adopted some leftist positions. I didn't think too much of these, as there can be room here for good people to disagree. Well, now I know that there was much more to the leftward tilt. I do hope and pray that he regains his perspective regarding the need to secure protections for the smallest and most defenseless of innocents - the unborn babies.
The video below was released today. Attorneys general from several states are considering investigations similar to the one undertaken by the state of Pennsylvania into the subterfuge conducted by prelates who enabled pervert clergy and who may themselves have raped young people (mostly young men) in their charges. This raises the possibility of the US Department of Justice launching its own investigation into RICO violations. Should the Church in the US be found guilty of RICO violations, they would immediately lose millions in federal funding. That impact would be felt at the Vatican for they in turn receive large amounts of money from the US Church.
So now we see the root cause of the Vatican's panic. It's not the widespread scandal and subsequent loss of souls to hell that is the main concern, but the loss of $$$. The Vatican is sending over Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta to head its investigation efforts. It was his investigation into Chile's scandals that led to the mass resignations of many bishops there. If it's the loss of money that causes the Vatican to take this matter seriously, well, so be it.
When I first suggested that faithful Catholics in the pews withhold their donations, naysayers mocked the idea by saying that "the bishops don't need our donations". Well, they might feel our denial now, since they stand to lose the millions of federal dollars upon which they had been relying. Voris hints that the USCCB and state conferences would be severely crimped, if not forced out of existence. To that, I say, "bring it on"! The USCCB and its state satellites have been absolute shills for every progressive agenda that the left puts forth: amnesty for border-jumpers, climate-change junk science, death penalty abolishment (complete contradiction to Church tradition), seizure of guns from law-abiding citizens. These conference-beasts need to be starved out of existence.
While we pray and fast for the situation in this Church, we should also withhold any donations from our chanceries and instead redirect it to truly worthwhile organizations that do the real work of the Church.
UPDATE: I originally posted the youtube, but that seems to be removed. It still exists here on facebook.
Among the "sickening reactions" are those from Pope Francis himself. I'll get into that. First let us take a look at the open letter that Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Wisconsin issued. This is a letter that I urge you to download to your own machines. He openly states that the scandal is homosexual in nature; it's the "elephant in the living room" that so many of the prelates refuse to acknowledge. Why do they refuse to acknowledge it? Perhaps they themselves are engaging in mortally sinful sodomy and/or they are being blackmailed on account of it. Or perhaps they are simply cowards who don't want to buck politically-correct societal sentiments for fear of backlash or losing donations. Pray that more bishops may face and state the facts as candidly as Morlino.
One such questionable prelate is Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta GA. He decided to appoint three priests as "diocesan spiritual directors" for victims of clerical abuse. One of those "directors" however, is pastor of an extremely gay-affirming parish. This parish holds social events for GLTB "couples" and hosts booths at "pride" events. Isn't this more of the "foxes guarding the hen houses"?
In the Diocese of Syracuse NY sits a bishop, Robert Cunningham, who three years ago opined that the rape victims of these pervert priests share culpability. Mind you, he was specifically speaking of 7-year-old victims, giving the excuse that they had attained the use of reason. So I suppose he thinks female rape victims are culpable as well? Generally in these cases the perpetrator is bigger than the victim and can easily overpower them. Did Bishop Cunningham not consider that? Or is he actually trying to excuse misconduct? I wonder if it's his own misconduct (if only his cowardice) that he tried to justify? What is truly mystifying is why he still sits in that chancery. Why hasn't the pope removed him?
Some of the pope's appointments have been similarly mystifying. From LifeSiteNews, we read that he recently consecrated as bishop a Portuguese priest who supports a nun in her promotion of abortion and homosexuality. He himself claims that Jesus "didn't establish rules". That of course is a flat-out lie. To those who think that the pope could not have known this about Father Mendonca, I reply that is absolute rubbish and an exercise in self-deception on your part. If LifeSiteNews could glean these facts that are publicly available, so too could the pope.
The Vatican finally issued a statement regarding the scandal unearthed by the downfall of a major supporter of the pope's election- McCarrick, of course. The statement said that the Vatican is in "shame and sorrow" over the mess and to the victims "the pope is on their side". So what? Big deal! Who cares what the Vatican says? The real question is what will they do? So far they haven't done much.
In an earlier post, I observed that the local Catholic prelates were in "damage control mode". Well, now the "damage control" has morphed into "full panic meltdown". Earlier this week, the ADW launched a site called "The Wuerl Record". From what I understand, it was an attempt by the Cardinal to say that "golly gee-wizz, I'm not such a bad guy after all, yada-yada-yada." It sounds like it was an exercise at pure self-aggrandizement. I never got to see it for it didn't take too much time for the site to be laughed off the internet. Ed McFadden, Communications Director for the ADW, took responsibility for the fiasco; when he took it down, he announced "in hindsight, it was a mistake". One wonders if McFadden really is to blame for the bomb, or if he's just "taking it on the chin for the team". He is correct that it was a mistake.
That was how the Archdiocese of Washington tried to handle its public image. However, the Archdiocese sees the aggrieved Catholics who are angry at the Cardinal for allowing them an/or loved ones to be victimized. So what does a Prince of the Church do in that circumstance? Why, he seeks legal refuge! Will that work before God's Judgment Throne?
The skeptical reader might ask why I make such a big deal of these developments? Let me begin to answer by asking my own questions: How is all this being financed? Who is footing the bill? Hint: if you live in the Archdiocese of Washington, you can answer these questions by staring into your mirror. Consider that the next time you hear or see any whining and sniveling from your pastors about the "harm done" by denying the chancery your donation dollars.
By the way - in yesterday's Washington Post is an editorial entitled "Cardinal Wuerl Must Go". It is a rare occasion when I agree with the Post, but this is one of them.
Last week I pointed out that Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, is not a journalist per se and as a layman has no particular unction to ferret out the misdeeds of the Catholic clergy. By the same token, though, he has no particular expertise to besmirch the work done by the State of Pennsylvania in putting out the report to which I linked yesterday. But that is what Donohue seems to be doing in this post on the League site. Fortunately it's not a long piece so it won't be too much trouble to dissect and rebut.
First, let's look at the title: "PA Grand Jury Report Based On Accusations". So what? Of course it is! That is the nature and purpose of grand juries: to decide if the available evidence constitutes cause for criminal indictment. It usually is the body that actually brings the indictment to court. Donohue states that plain fact in such a way to cast doubt on the grand jury's integrity. It is true that this report shines the light on misdeeds of clergy now deceased or now out of reach because of the statute of limitations. However, some instances are somewhat recent and can be brought to trial. It also shines the light on prelates who willfully concealed the crimes of their underlings and might make some ripe for prosecution.
"When the dust settles, what counts are the facts". Has he looked at the report? There are multiple testimonies regarding the same clerics. There are photocopies of letters and other documentation. There are money trails. Bring on the facts!
"Many of those named are not priests: the list includes lay persons, deacons, and seminarians". He forgot to add "bishops". The point is that all accused were operating in church-related scenarios, under the authority of the hierarchy when they committed their crimes. But let's look again at Donohue's curious omission of the word "bishops" in that sentence. One key feature of this grand jury report is that it details the nefarious roles played by prelates either in the commission of the crimes themselves and/or by concealment of the crimes of their underlings and refusal to bring dangerous underlings to heel.
"Even among the living, most have not had opportunity to rebut the accusations". Excuse me, but what's to stop them from doing so now? Let them do so - if they can.
"In most cases there has been no attempt by the dioceses or the grand jury to verify the accusations. This is what happens when an investigation extends back to World War II." Again, the purpose of a grand jury is to bring forth accusations, not conduct the actual trial. As far as the dioceses goes, many have been doing everything in their power to stymie any real investigation; they are interested only in silencing the victims and "damage control". The latest evidence of that can be seen in my post from yesterday. As far as the "world war 2" quip goes, that is necessary because there was no investigation of the crimes that occurred back then.
Then there's this: "Those awaiting a grand jury report on the sexual abuse of minors in the public schools, or among the clergy of other religions, shouldn’t hold their breath. It will never happen." Talk about an irrelevant straw man! As far as the crimes go that have been committed by clergy - including bishops, what happens outside the church is irrelevant. At least these public school teachers and protestants aren't committing sacrilege against the Sacrament of Holy Orders and vows of celibacy.
Then in this tome Donohue says that the "bishops strike the right tone". We're not concerned about "tone". We're concerned about truth. Any bishop who concealed any pervert clergy - even if that pervert is a fellow bishop - should resign.
Just a little reminder. Many years ago, the Standard had a "letters to the editor" section; a fair number of mine were printed. However, as soon as ex-cardinal McCarrick announced his intentions to hold Canon 915 in disregard, that section disappeared from the paper and remains gone today. Inside contacts indicate that the Standard was flooded with letters decrying McCarrick's nose-thumbing at the Blessed Sacrament and received orders from "on high" not to publish one of them. That silence was a key motivation behind my start of the website and this blog.
Therefore it is no surprise that the Standard is in full "damage control" mode in the wake of the PA report. As you read the Standard piece, notice a few things:
Pennsylvania released the report today. The Standard article is dated today. So are we to believe that the Standard staff had time to study the report, write the article and upload it to their site on the same day that the report was released? Or was this sorry excuse of a rebuttal crafted ahead of the report's release?
I fail to detect any specific examples of inaccuracies regarding Wuerl that are allegedly in the report. We see just a bunch of blather about "standards" etc.
Such speed! Such alacrity! The Standard is most prompt with its damage control, even if it's rather inept. However, they cannot be faulted, for no one can defend the indefensible and still claim to have an ounce of intelligence and integrity.
I wonder if the Standard will bring back its "letters to the editor" feature. Just kidding!
The long-awaited PA Grand Jury Report has been released. The pdf is here. Please download it to your machines, in case there are attempts to take it offline. Please note that the section on the Diocese of Pittsburgh, with then-Bishop Donald Wuerl at the helm, starts on page 210 of the file. I just now had opportunity to download it and will study it later. Others who have already read it state that the record of Cardinal Wuerl's cover-up crimes is incontrovertible, and lends weight to calls for his resignation. Perhaps prosecution is in order. Aiding and abetting is its own crime, and as far as Catholic morality goes, Wuerl most certainly did cooperate with many mortal sins.
When news of this whole mess broke, I immediately started to think of protests at the bishops' November meeting in Baltimore. Apparently I was not alone. Six well-known pro-life/Catholic organizations have formed a coalition for the purpose of organizing a presence at the USCCB's semi-annual gabfest. Their website is thebishopsknew.com. Please consider supporting this effort with your presence (details are still to be determined).
Also, please consider the cessation of donations to dioceses that are:
named in this report
headed by prelates named in this report who have aided and abetted these predators
the present homes to any of these predator clergy
led by prelates who are trying to affect a dismissive attitude towards this mess
We will let the corrupt clergy (and other cowardly clergy) get away with any more cover-up. The silence stops now.
Almost two weeks ago, Zenit published a piece by Father Thomas Rosica entitled "The Ignatian Qualities Of The Petrine Ministry Of Pope Francis". For all his many faults, and they do abound in excess, he certainly seems to be accurate in stating the underpinnings of Pope Francis' thinking. Of course he enthuses about the pope's progressivism, but they do seem to be peas of the same pod.
This most revelatory gem occurred towards the end: "Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants, because he is free from disordered attachments. Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture."
"Whenever he wants"? That is a mark of a tin horn dictator, not the "Servant of the Servants of God". Then he says that the Church is ruled by an individual rather than the authority of Scripture and Tradition. Well, so much for all that "collegiality" talk! Sure sounds like papolatry to me!
Rosica also agrees that the pope doesn't care one whit about defending and promulgating Church teaching and Tradition. In fact, Tradition stems from God Himself, so does that mean that the pope might actually be setting himself before God? For an excellent treatment of this problem, we are grateful for Pope St Pius X and his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. The current pontiff would do well to read it - if he hasn't already done so and scoffed.
Rosica's piece was published before he and Cdl Wuerl engaged in their mutual-admiration gabfest. I've no reason to doubt that the Cardinal saw it and had not one objection.
When I went to a weekday Mass at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in DC during last week, I saw their Aug 5 bulletin and an item caught my eye. It's a letter from the relatively new pastor, Father Bill Foley, addressing the congregation about the McCarrick mess. Here it is.
At first it starts out in a relatively conciliatory tone, but it isn't long before we get to the real heart of the matter. Notice how he says that those harmed by the Cardinal might be "filled with rage" and "seek revenge". That's rather pejorative language, don't you think? That's a thinly-veiled attempt to cajole good people who've been hurt into not seeking redress for the harm done for them.
Regrettably, the only way we can do that is to withhold money. Otherwise, the bishops will continue to brush off our concerns. Cardinal Wuerl demonstrated that quite amply with his dismissive attitudes towards the laity, suggesting that:
bishops investigate themselves and each other and
that we are not in a "massive, massive crisis"
Why does Father Foley not recall that? Does he too think the laity are naive little bumpkins? Moreover, if he's concerned about limiting "what the parish does to serve you", why doesn't he simply divulge to the congregation the donations that aren't assessed by the Archdiocese? After all, he does opine that the withholding "will not in any significant way affect the Archdiocese", so what harm would assessment-free support do? Yoo-hoo! Are you listening, Father Foley??
I already laid out a strategy to starve the chancery beasts while supporting decent parishes. One question that each Catholic will have to answer for themselves is whether or not their individual parish warrants support. There is a matter of justice if you're attending Mass there, sitting in their pews, using their bathrooms, etc, that might require some minimum, even if the parish is lackluster. By the way - Blessed Sacrament has been known to host pro-aborts, celebrate dissidents, etc. In all fairness to Father Foley, these insults to the Faith occurred prior to his arrival there.
I haven't done too extensive a search, but I haven't seen any such dribble in any other parish bulletins. Has anyone else?
The Knights of Columbus held their Supreme Convention in Baltimore a few days ago. In attendance were Cardinal Wuerl and Father Thomas Rosica. Rosica interviewed Wuerl, probably as part of his coverage for his "Salt and Light" thing. You can put both their names in the search box at the top left to understand why this interview is a huge joke. No one with two brain cells firing in syncopation could possibly take this seriously. When Wuerl congratulates Rosica for his "fine work", did he have in mind Rosica's attempt to sue the blogger behind Vox Cantoris?
At 6.35 Wuerl glibly distorts the Fifth Commandment and the Church's Traditional support of the death penalty. He says that (sit down!), the state's usage of armies and death penalty are exceptions to the Fifth Commandment. No, Your Eminence! The Fifth Commandment prohibits murder - that is, the deliberate killing of innocent human beings. The usage of armies and the death penalty were - and are - never proscribed by the Fifth Commandment! A few minutes later, he says, that "we don't have to do that anymore, we can put them in jail". But wait a minute! Pope Francis has also bad-mouthed life imprisonment, calling it "torture". Here we have a prime example of the progressives collectively talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Here is the interview.
Did you catch, at 3:11, when Wuerl says "I don't think this is some massive, massive crisis". He's speaking of the bishop sex abuse scandal. Oh really, Your Eminence? Try saying that to the men who have left the priesthood and even the Faith after they were abused and subsequently dismissed! Try saying that to the parents of the shattered young men!
Well, what might he think is a "massive, massive crisis"? Yes! The shrinkage of archdiocesan bank accounts! Perhaps if we give him that ma$$ive cri$i$, maybe then he and his ilk will understand that we are going to clean house!
Any parishioners of St John Neumann who are reading this, please boycott the CCHD collection this weekend. For your envelopes, you may wish to use the stuffer at the bottom or make up your own note. Let's give them a "ma$$ive, ma$$ive cri$i$" in their wallets!
Long-time readers of this blog know that I started it, and its precessor website, precisely because of the misbehaviors of Cardinal McCarrick. Often have I striven to shine the light on his hobnobbing with pro-aborts (such as John Sweeney and Ted Kennedy), rubbing elbows with dissidents like Sister Carol Keehan, turning a blind eye toward the fetal tissue research at Georgetown, and his enthusing about Islam. In light of the recent revelations about McCarrick, you might recall that I said nothing about the allegations of homosexual conduct that even then were swirling about the rumor mill. Why, you might ask?
The reason is quite simple. At the time the allegations were merely rumors. Until several weeks ago, there was no credible allegation that passed legal muster. Until several weeks ago, none of his victims stepped forth into the public to levy charges against him. Now more victims are stepping out of the shadows. But while the victims remained in the shadows, the rumors of homosexual crimes were precisely that - rumors, and unsubstantiated ones at that. I will put nothing on this blog that hasn't been substantiated with facts.
I was a bit troubled to see this piece from Church Militant yesterday, basically taking Catholic League President Bill Donohue to task for knowing but doing nothing. They did quote Donohue's statement. A very relevant piece of it is: "Everyone heard rumors about what was going on down in Sea Girt, on the New Jersey shore. I couldn't verify anything. Who am I? You hear rumors. A lot of rumors are untrue. These rumors turned out to be true." The CM article, towards the end, states that Donohue's "well-placed friends could have verified it for him". Perhaps, but what if Donohue asked and they didn't? How are they so all-fired certain that Donohue didn't try?
None of us would have known a thing had that allegation not been proven credible, with the accusor going public. None of us would dare shine the spotlight on this matter - not so much for fear of legal ramifications but because as Catholics we cannot go about rumor-mongering. I didn't give vent to the rumors for that reason. Donohue, for all his faults (yes, his praise of Wuerl's self-policing idea is, at best, laughable), should not be excoriated for his previous silence. If he tries to defend either Wuerl or McCarrick now that facts are coming forth, then I'd agree he might suffer from myopia - just as those who refuse to hold the pope accountable for his ever-increasing threats to the faith (ahem!).
On the Facebook wall of one of the CM staff, I and another blogger pointed out the pointlessness of accusing Donohue of anything, given that no one had come forth with hard data until the past two months. She tried to contradict us by saying that the site bishopaccountability.org reported on it, as well as Richard Sipe and Rob Drehr. Here''s what I saw on bishopaccountability. You'll have to scroll quite a bit to get to McCarrick. Notice how all the sources are within the past two months?
Regarding Richard Sipe, I see on the site traditioninaction an "open letter" that he wrote to Pope Benedict XVI detailing his concerns about McCarrick's antics. Well, he might indeed have supplied the details to Pope Benedict, but unless we were made privy to them, how on earth were we supposed to act? Without access to facts, we had no choice but to consider the allegations as rumors.
In that discussion I opined that the adult victims who remained silent shared some of the responsibility for allowing McCarrick to continue his rampage unimpeded. I still do. Silence is one of the nine ways that one can cooperate with sin. To those men: you have a moral duty to come forward and report your incidents to the public. While McCarrick himself may be out of circulation, perhaps your story will encourge victims of other pervert clergy to come forward so that those errant priests will be prevented from harming others in the future.
We need to be praying our rosaries for the Church and her ministers.
In the wake of the scandals rocking the bishops and cardinals, Catholics in the US can now breathe a sigh of relief, as our intrepid prelates are on the job! Why, just today Cardinal Wuerl called for a panel to investigate such allegations of bishops! And just whom does Wuerl suggest should be members of this sterling panel? Why, bishops, of course! This panel would operate under the authority of (trumpets and drum rolls please), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops! Who else? What could possibly go right with such an arrangement? /sarc
Seriously! How stupid and naive does Wuerl think we are? We haven't forgotten that his good buddy and immediate predecessor is the one whose stench set off our alarms. Moreover, we also understand that Wuerl has his own troubling history from his days in Pittsburgh. His suggestion is analogous to Frank James suggesting that he set watch over his brother Jesse. So either Wuerl thinks we're idiots or he really doesn't take the matter seriously at all - or maybe both.
By the way.. Let's say that some similar panel were set up in Argentina. Wanna bet how that good-old-boy outfit would address this one?
Please continue to withhold your donations from your chanceries.
In a blog post yesterday, Msgr Pope appears to be minimizing the damage done by Pope Francis' attempt to change Church doctrine and to chide faithful Catholics (including Yours Truly) into silence. Please remember that this blog is hosted on a server owned by the Archdiocese of Washington and that he has been quashed by them before. However, if you read through the comments, you'll see that many of his readers comprehend the far-reaching implications of this latest action by Pope Francis. Edward Feser of First Things elaborates on this further.
The Not-At-All Catholic Reporter opined last week that abortion should not be criminalized and that if we really want to end abortion, we'll need "support for birth control". In other words, to eliminate one evil, substitute another. In this screed against laws to prevent abortion, I wonder what the authors would think if we were to substitute "racism" for "abortion"? But I digress.
Of course they waxed lyrical over Francis' death penalty gaffe and what they acknowledge as an attempt to change Church teaching. They really have no concern for obeying Church teaching, as evidenced by their dismissive attitudes towards contraception. But perhaps they believe that the pope will try to bastardize the Church's teachings on contraception. I regret they may be correct in that prediction.
On August 22-24 in Dublin Ireland, the so-called "World Meeting of Families" will be conducted. It's going to be based on Amoralis Lamentia. Already it sounds like a hoot to be avoided, but it gets worse. Among the presenters are: Cardinal O'Malley, Bishop Barron, Cardinal Cupich and Father James Martin. Father Leo Patalinghug will be offering "recipes to strengthen family life". Recipes? I thought prayer and sacraments and fidelity to Tradition did that! Whatever did families do for strength before Father Patalinghug was born?
You can put each of these names in the search box at the top left of this blog to understand why this debacle in Ireland will be a colossal waste of time and money, at best.
On the same dates and also in Dubin will occur the "Conference Of Catholic Families". Judging from the roster of excellent speakers so far, this meeting promises to be faithful to the Tradition of the Church. I'd recommend that.
Catholics of the Archdiocese of Washington, it is absolutely incumbent upon each and every one of us - no exceptions - to boycott the second collection this weekend! It is the annual collection for that snake-in-the-grass organization known as the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (and don't let their cute name mutation deceive you). The CCHD is evil in and of itself, but now we have additional reason to withhold our money. You have seen this week the reasons why our dioceses must feel our "power of the purse" for their wanton diversion of funds to pay off the settlements for our pervert prelates. We will not drop one penny in the diocesan coffers until they repent of facilitating McCarrick's disgraceful conduct. Cardinal Wuerl, present archbishop of Washington, has been implicated in multiple coverups - not only of McCarrick but quite a few pervert priests during his time in Pittsburgh. This chancery needs to be starved until all filth is purged from it.
Last Sunday I posted an envelope stuffer that you can put in your CCHD envelope; drop that in the basket instead of money. It is important that the clergy know exactly why their collection intake is less than what they expected. With this flyer (or your own note), you'll be exercising the Spiritual Works of Mercy such as: rebuking the sinner, educating the ignorant.
I'm now posting yesterday's episode of the World Over. The discussion revolves around the bishop sex abuse scandal AND the pope's attempt to mutate Church teaching on the death penalty. Some have been erroneously claiming that this teaching change is meant to divert our attention from the bishop sex scandal. Maybe - or maybe it's the other way around. Perhaps the bishop abuse thing was allowed to break to provide cover for this attempt to undermine the understanding that Church teaching is immutable because God, the source of that teaching, is Himself immutable. Interestingly enough, even gay activists understand the implications of this dangerous precedent that the pope is attempting to establish. After all, if Church teaching on the death penalty can change, why not other teachings - for example, teachings on homosexuality? From their evil perspective, they understand it, as evidenced by this New Ways article.
Please listen to this entire clip. Many important points are made in it.
It cannot be denied. No pope can change Church teaching. The Church's teachings are immutable for they emanate from God, who is Himself immutable. Throughout the centuries the Church has always upheld the legitimacy and usefulness of capital punishment. No one pope can turn around and contradict all his predecessors, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church etc without pronouncing heresy.
Many blogging colleagues have written excellent analyses of this latest antic of Pope Francis'. Rather than "reinvent the wheel", I'll now link to them for your reference and reading.
One Peter Five - with a discussion on why the pope's statement is formal heresy
Ann Barnhardt - with a smattering of teaching throughout the years
AKA Catholic - detailing how Pope John Paul II's errors facilitated today's heresy
Remnant- exposing the arrogance behind Francis' stunt.
This heresy needs to be put in some context. I don't think I'm the only one to find it very interesting that the pope plopped this stinker just as we are all focused on the sodomite rapists among the episcopate. In a saner time, they would be eligible for the death penalty, but I digress.
We also notice that this is happening as there is much discussion on:
admission of divorced and "remarried", that is, adulterers, to Holy Communion
admission of non-Catholics to Holy Communion
allowing dissident women to pretend that they are "deaconesses"
The things stated above would all be heretical. Might the push to demonize capital punishment be a "trial balloon", so to speak, to get faithful Catholics to swallow the false notion that immutable Church teaching can be "tweaked" here and there? Some faithful Catholics might buy the canard that capital punishment might well be declared wrong in opposition to centuries of Tradition. But right there, the camel has stuck his nose under the tent, for if Tradition can be disregarded with respect to capital punishment, why not with respect to contraception or homosexuality or divorce/remarriage or even abortion?
Formal heresy has been uttered. Is Peter's seat vacant?
In this Vortex, Michael Voris rightly excoriates Cardinals Cupich, O'Malley, Wuerl, J Tobin, Bishop Bootkoski for their parts in "running interference" for their champion pervert, McCarrick. The one thing I'll add at this time is more information on these prelates who disgrace their miters.
Cardinal Dolan is Archbishop of New York. I've written tons on him; you might recall that he marched at the head of the St Patrick's Day Parade after it admitted gays to profane the name of St. Patrick. Jay Malsky is a flaming gay and in charge of the "gay straight katholyc alliance" at St. Francis de Sales Church in New York City. He performs in drag and actually put on his wig in front of the Tabernacle, thus committing sacrilege. Will he be thrown out? Don't hold your breath. But Father Justin Wylie was when he dared to petition for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.
New York is not the only diocese to have a pervert at the helm of one of its "gay ministries". Chicago, under Cardinal Cupich, has one too. He is at St. Patrick's Church. Within the next two months, he and his accomplice in sodomy will mock and profane the Sacrament of Matrimony. At least the debacle is not happening in a Catholic church, nor is the reception. Again, how long will he be allowed to use the Church to justify his mortal sin?
If Cupich hasn't been faced with sacrilege against matrimony yet, Cardinal Tobin did when he was archbishop of Madison, Indiana. A Knight of Columbus council rented its hall to two lesbians for their so-called "wedding reception". We petitioned Tobin to no avail. At first I thought he merely caved to the lesbians. Now I wonder if the Council caved to the lesbians under the orders of Tobin.
And then there's my home diocese of Washington. The maltreatment of Father Marcel Guarnizo, during Lent of 2012, happened in my home parish. That happened with full knowledge, if not initiative, of Cardinal Wuerl. Bishop Knestout behaved as the good little hatchet man, and was eventually rewarded by being appointed Bishop of Richmond.
Bishop Bootkoski is another who tossed a faithful Catholic under the bus. Three years ago, a Catholic high school teacher posted a tweet in support of the Church's marriage teachings. For her fidelity she was fired. Fortunately, we caused enough uproar to bring about her reinstatement but she should never have been put through that angst in the first place.
I'm sure you see the common theme. In each case, the prelate in question was doing the bidding of the gay cartel. They even stabbed faithful Catholics in the back for so doing. Enough is enough. Bishop McCarrick has turned in his red hat. Many more red and purple hats (and maybe a white one) likewise need to be surrendered. The prelates discussed at the top should lead that foray.