Archdiocese Of Baltimore Has Filed For Bankruptcy

A Maryland law, signed in April, will take effect this Sunday, October 1, 2023.  It will remove statute of limitations deadlines for the filing of child sexual assault lawsuits against institutions.  At that time, the Maryland Attorney General's office had released a report detailing the abuse of 600 children by 150 clergy.  That report was revised this past month and can be found here.  Only a handful of names are redacted from this one.

In a move most likely calculated to shield church assets from lawsuits anticipated as a result of both the law and the report, today the Archdiocese of Baltimore has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Among other things, that means that any settlement of suits will be handled in bankruptcy courts, not civil courts.   They tend to be less transparent.

Now That You've Given Up TV For Lent...

Are you dreading boredom and "boob tube withdrawal"?  Never fear!  Now there's (drum roll, please)

BISHOPS' RESPONSE BINGO!!

Yes!  Just print off the graphic below.  When the next scandal is unveiled and the prelate in question lets off with a damage-control spiel, see how many of his canned replies and lame excuses match what's on the card!  Will there be enough to make a complete line of five quips?  We'll be surprised if the entire block isn't entirely filled in!  Please note that while it was created in response to the PA bishops tripping all over themselves, it is applicable to all scandals nationwide.

As you play this little game (probably repeatedly), please pray that these errant clergy come to repentance while they still have time on earth.

Lay People! Stiffen Your Spines And Thicken Your Skins!

Michael Voris did a special report on gay infiltration and corruption in a New Jersey diocese that got its start from McCarrick.  Voris mentioned in passing that parishioners are disgusted but didn't want to go public for fear of the bishop.  While McCarrick et al were a big factor of the problem, this servile cowardice of the congregations is yet another.

Of what are they afraid?  They're lay people!  They aren't vowed in obedience to the bishop!  We laity have rights that clergy don't.  Are they afraid that a priest might glare at them from the pulpit, or that he might grouse at them in the hallway?  Are they afraid they will lose positions of influence in the parish or of being kicked out of parish functions?  If that happens, well so what??

Really!  We laity must stiffen our spinal columns and thicken our skins!  If we shrink at the thought of arousing the ire of an errant priest or his buddies, how on earth do we think we will deal with real persecution from the world that seems to be increasing as I write this?

Let's not forget that as lay people, we hold a unique power over them, and that is the power of the purse.  Money talks a lot to corrupt clergy and we should ensure that they hear ours - or lack thereof, if you get my drift.

Of course we must draw strength and courage from prayer and the Sacraments.  These are the source of supernatural faith and courage.  But after that we must simply square our shoulders and do the unpleasant work of confronting evil within the Church.  Let's not tolerate cowardice in ourselves or each other.  It is a vice that will lead to sins of omission.  If we don't care enough to confront evil, we  will have to answer for that in our particular judgments.

The Pope's Hatchet Men

Towards the beginning of the debacle known as the USCCB meeting in Baltimore, Cardinal DiNardo, president of the USCCB, announced the pope's orders to shelve any vote on measures to deal with the episcopal sex abuse scandals.  It was apparent the DiNardo made the announcement with much chagrin and some of the bishops were likewise displeased at the announcement.  Right away Cardinal Cupich stood up and declared that the pope was taking the matter seriously.  It was clear that he knew of the pope's intentions and his mission was to run interference for the pope.

Throughout the meeting it was apparent that Cupich was the de facto head honcho of the meeting, along with Cardinal Wuerl.  A few months ago Wuerl elicited well-deserved scorn for suggesting that bishops should investigate one another: specifically, an accused bishop should be investigated by his metropolitan, as Archbishop Lori is ostensibly doing with Bishop Bransfield.  In other words, the foxes should guard the hen houses.   That is precisely what Wuerl and Cupich tried to cram down the throats of the other bishops.  Here is a video, but more follows this video.



Another henchman is Cardinal Joseph Tobin.  As Tobin was checking out of the hotel after the meeting, George Neumayr intercepted him and asked him several questions.  Tobin didn't bother to deny that Italian actor Francesco Castiglione was living in his rectory - but didn't give any plausible reason why.  It may be reasonable to opine that he was the intended recipient of the "nighty-night baby I love you" tweet.  I pray that Tobin was being honest when he said that he wouldn't be foisted upon the DC archdiocese as its next bishop.

A few bishops - but only a few - spoke up with some truth at that meeting.  See the video below.  Meanwhile, Legatus, an organization of Catholic businessmen, announced that they would be withholding their annual donations to the Vatican in light of their abysmal performance.  No doubt they want reassurances that their donations won't be used to cover up the mortal sins of clergymen.  We need to do that as well - withhold our donations until they get serious and clean the filth from their own ranks.

Focus On Feelings?

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.

Current PA Offenders Still At Large

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?

DC Area Catholics, Get Ready To Take Action This Weekend!

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.

The Patron Saint Of The USCCB!

Here he is!



Some of McCarrick's comrades are doing stellar jobs at emulating their patron saint!

Seriously, though, I'd urge you all to watch the video below.  The denials of Farrell, Wuerl, etc are brazenly dishonest.  I again urge you to implement this immediately; find some like-minded Catholics in your areas to help promulgate this so that the boycott will have optimum impact.

McCarrick Is Gone, But This Is NOT Over By A Longshot

Today the USCCB announced that Cardinal McCarrick submitted to the pope his resignation from the College of Cardinals; the pope accepted that resignation and directed that the now ex-cardinal spend his life in prayer and penance in seclusion.

While this news is welcome, it is not altogether unexpected.  When the story broke on June 20 that he had been removed from public ministry, I and others speculated that he might well be the designated "fall guy", taking "one for the team" and being handsomely rewarded for it.  They were perhaps hoping that after the removal, that the public's admittedly fickle attention would be diverted elsewhere and McCarrick's situation fall off the communal radar.  However, the media, both secular and the faithful Catholic outlets did not let it die.  In fact, we started to ask questions about the network that kept McCarrick and others in office for decades while these crimes were occurring.

It was probably our interest in a large-scale boycott of all diocesan collections (and the USCCB ones) that really caused them to adopt more intensive damage-control measures - hence today's announcement.  They probably fear not only the loss of revenues but the prospect of us probing into their skullduggary and exposing the cancer that they unleashed upon Holy Mother Church.

So now McCarrick is removed.  We don't know how voluntary that resignation was, but at this point it doesn't matter.  I suspect there will be no real change in his lifestyle.  At his age he wasn't engaged in that much public ministry anyway.  I believe he'll live in relative comfort.  They won't do too much to him because they realize that he may well have dirt on many of them.  We certainly must pray that he does repent and make a good confession before it's time for him to stand before God, as we all must.

Let the USCCB and the Vatican understand that while we are pleased at this first step, by no means are we satisfied.  We will not be mollified by one prelate's removal, when there is an entire network of evil infesting the Church.  We intend to keep probing, and yes, we will exercise our "power of the purse strings".  The glare of public attention will not abate, although our donations certainly will.

Certainly we can say that no more will the donations of hard-working faithful Catholics go towards legal settlements occasioned by the debauched romps and orgies of faithless and  perverted prelates.  Case in point: the diocese of Great Falls - Billings Montana has to cough up $20 million to pay off several victims of perverted clergy.  They had the unmitigated gall to go to their parishioners and tell them that 1) each parish would have to fork over 10% of their savings accounts (money from the laity) and 2) each family was expected to "donate" $1,000.00.  My hope and prayer is that the Montana laity will tell Bishop Warfel to take his extortion demand and "shove it where the sun don't shine".  Warfel's shakedown is nothing short of an outrage.

McCarrick should never have received that red hat.  When that bestowal was announced, some went to Rome to advise Pope John Paul II of his crimes.  Sadly, the pope ignored them.  Those unnamed individuals are now justified.  But there is the whole network that helped McCarrick move up the ladder to his former positions of influence.  There are the prelates who most likely knew of his crimes.  Let's shine the spotlight on them as we both pray our Rosaries and withhold our donations.

Below is a panel discussion that aired last night before news of McCarrick's removal broke this morning.  Listen to get a flavor of the outrage that needs to continue to purge our Church of the filth and vermin within her halls.

McCarrick Matter Puts Past Situations In New Light

Both LifeSiteNews and National Catholic Register raise a very serious question.  That is, "In light of what they knew regarding Cardinal McCarrick's crimes of perversion, why did his brother bishops say nothing, essentially allowing McCarrick to carry on unfettered?"  We even know that when Pope John Paul II was considering the bestowal of the "red hat" on then-Archbishop McCarrick, a group of seminarians (some prior targets) went to Rome to advise against this appointment; the were ignored.

I now link to an article written a few days ago by Eric Sammons.  It appears on the One Peter Five site and is entitled "Who Watches The Watchmen?  The Fatal Flaw Of The Dallas Charter".   He, like I, resided in the Archdiocese of Washington at the time and we experienced in our different ways the damage control mechanisms of the DC chancery when the Boston Globe first broke the story regarding the rampant abuse of minors by clerics.  He relates his experiences as a parent of being treated as a potential abuser when he challenged the fatal flaws of Virtus.

My experience of the damage control was different but still quite revealing.  In the wake of the scandals, the chancery decided to have discussion panels at various parishes to detail to concerned Catholics "what they were doing to address the problem".  I realized very soon after the first and only session at St Raphael's in Rockville that its purposes was to quell our questioning and displeasure.

The room at St Raphael's was packed.  The panel of so-called "experts" from the Archdiocese first tried to tell us that nationwide only about 10% of pedophile cases are homosexual in nature.  That didn't work when we pointed out that we were not concerned with pedophilia as it occurs in the general population but that which is perpetrated by Catholic clergy, and that indeed is over 90% homosexual.  For the rest of the evening, the "experts" adopted  "deer-in-headlight" facial expressions as they tried to suffer through and end their torture quickly. This first of these sessions turned out to be the last as well.  Clearly these "experts" were instructed to brainwash us into disregarding the homosexual component.  Now they probably had no idea that their boss Cardinal McCarrick was one of those abusers, and we certainly didn't.  However, last week's news puts my St Raphael's experience in a new light.

Also put in a new light is the situation that occurred at my parish over six years ago, when Father Marcel Guarnizo was expelled from the Archdiocese for denying Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian.  I needn't go through these details, including the ADW's despicable conduct towards Father, but when you consider that another pervert, albeit retired, still wielded much influence in the chancery, we get a bit more insight into the mindsets of ADW leaders.

Some of my colleagues voice optimism that this revelation might signal a paradigm shift in attitudes of church leaders towards gay sex abuse among their clergy.  I remain cautious for leopards don't change their spots overnight.  I voiced a possibility that Cardinal McCarrick, since he is already of advanced age, might simply be "taking one for the team", and if our attention is diverted to other matters, he might simply be left alone to be quietly rewarded.  But I may happily be proven wrong.  God does work miracles.

BREAKING - Cardinal McCarrick Removed From Ministry After "Credible" Abuse Allegations - Updated

From LifeSiteNews.  I'll have more to say on this later when time allows, and will add to this post.  Suffice it now to say that I'm not the least bit surprised.

UPDATE:
As promised, I will add my two cents worth now that I have some time.  As a reminder, I have lived in the Archdiocese of Washington since early childhood - about 54 years.  That means I endured the reign of Cardinal McCarrick and his ever-increasing progressive pandering.  At one time, faithful Catholics could make their displeasure known via the Catholic Standard's "letters to the editor".  Once McCarrick made known his disdain for Canon 915, the Standard ceased their "letters to the editor" because they were hearing from thousands of faithful Catholics (including me).  To date the Standard has not resumed that feature.  Hence I started the site restore-dc-catholicism.com website and a few years later, this blog, to give some voice to faithful Catholics and to help coordinate some activism to clean up the Church.  When McCarrick had retired and Wuerl succeeded him, we had hopes for some improvement.  We know what became of those hopes.

In his retirement, McCarrick had not kept any silence.  Put the word "McCarrick" in the search box in the top left to see how he, in his retirement, continued to trash the credibility of the Church.  We haven't heard from him too much lately and I assume he's just slowing down due to his advanced age.  So much for this background.

Let's look closely at his statement as quoted by LifeSiteNews.  As he commented on the report of the allegation, he said. "while I have absolutely no recollection of this reported abuse".  That's quite the Freudian slip.  If someone were to allege that I had robbed a bank, murdered a person, committed arson, etc, my statement wouldn't indicate that "I have no recollection" for I know damned well that I didn't commit those crimes, I'd denounce the allegation vehemently and I'd take the person who made the allegations to court for slander, defamation of character, you name it.  Now McCarrick has alwasy been quite slippery with his words.  Might he have meant that he had no recollection of that particular incident simply because there were so many over the years that he lost track of them all?

It's no secret that Pope Francis himself is quite sympathetic to sodomites.  The interim relatio at the 2014 Extraordinary Synod on the Family made that painfully obvious, as did other incidents detailed in various blogposts.  So why, oh why, did McCarrick get sacked?  Did he somehow run afoul of that Bergoglio-led mafia in the Vatican?  Maybe, but maybe not.  We faithful Catholics have been turning up the heat on the Vatican for some time.  Maybe they decided to toss to us a little bone.  The Cardinal has been removed from public ministry.  So what?  Just how much "public ministry" is an 87-year-old doing anyway?  Perhaps he's being secretly rewarded for being a "fall-guy".

It's difficult to guess the motives behind the removal of McCarrick from ministry.  Suffice it to say that the Vatican is most likely operating from less-than-honorable motives.  At least some sort of justice has been served, even if only meagerly.  Let us pray for more cleansing of the Church's clergy.

Now A Prelate Utters Yet Another Horrid Statement

Nearly nine years ago in the Diocese of St Petersburg, Florida, Terri Schiavo was deliberately starved to death by order of her adulterous husband.  Jeb Bush, current presidential wanna-bee, was governor at that time and did nothing of substance to save her life.  He has demonstrated his utter lack of moral courage and his ineligibility to be considered presidential material, but that topic will be saved for another time.  We now turn our attention to Bishop Robert Lynch.

Bishop Robert Lynch was the local ordinary at that time, and still is.  Not only did he stand by and do nothing, but he issued a statement that literally gave Michael Schiavo a blessing to continue to murder his wife.  He uttered not one peep of condemnation for the murder that was taking place in his own diocese.  Read the incredible statement here.  I might also point out that he forbade his priests to minister to Terri in her last days.  After her death, he would not allow the Schindler family to conduct any memorial service in his diocese.  HOWEVER - he did allow Michael Schiavo to marry his long-term concubine in a diocesan church.  What a guy!

Fast forward to today.  Bishop Lynch is undoubtedly participating in the "maturation effort".  Remember - Pope Francis said we had one year to mature before the next October synod!  On Tuesday he issued a statement in which he opined that the Church needs "humility in light of same sex marriage".  You might be wondering just what the hell he means by that; well, read on.  Here's a choice statement that begs for unpacking.  "Therefore, I do not wish to lend our voice to notions which might suggest that same-sex couples are a threat incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness and, thus, incapable of contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society."

• "Threat"?  I won't comment on the individuals involved per se.  We cannot deny that their sodomite situations are serious threats - to the concept of marriage, family life and yes, to those participating in those perverted relationships.  Those engaging in such sins threaten their immortal souls and those with whom they claim to be "in love".
• incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness  Indeed they are that incapable.  There is no "love and holiness" in mortally sinful situations.  If they continue to live that way, they are headed for hell. By their sin they disdain the graces needed for true charity and holiness.  Did Bishop Lynch flunk his Baltimore Catechism lessons?
• contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society  What they are "contributing is NOT to the "edification" of anything.  Rather, they are part and parcel of the culture of death and damnation.  Suffering for them can only result in this life and much more so in the afterlife IF they don't repent of their sin and go to confession.

Besides his cheer-leading for the sin-nod (as you can see in his statement), Bishop Lynch may well have other reasons for shilling for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle.  In Randy Engel's book The Rite of Sodomy, she details Bishop Lynch's own sordid escapades.

Nine years ago Bishop Lynch gave de facto blessing to Michael Schiavo as the latter had his wife murdered.  Tuesday he did the same for those living in sodomy.  Will his brother bishops rebuke him?  I wouldn't hold my breath, but would love to be pleasantly surprised by such actions.

Pray for Holy Mother Church and her leaders.  Shine the light of truth.

California Cleansing

On February 1 it was announced that Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez has informed his predecessor, retired Cardinal Roger Mahony, that he has been relieved of any duties within the archdioceses.  Furthermore, he has accepted the resignation of Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry.  This comes on the heels of his release of the files of those archdiocesan personnel accused of sexual abuse of minors.

In the wake of the archbishop's actions, the cardinal has posted his response to him.  As you read the letter, you will probably sense the petulance and sniveling therein.  The letter starts with the ridiculous excuse that "nothing in my education equipped me to deal with this grave problem".  What of basic decency or common sense?  Moreover, there was the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself.  There's the equipment.

Let us pray that some sense of repentance and of the dignity of the office of bishop be infused into Cardinal Mahony for the sake of his own immortal soul.  From the sound of his response, both are sorely lacking at this time.  Let us also pray that other dioceses in this nation experience similar expurgations.

The Plague Of Gay Clergy

I will preface this Vortex episode with some of my own observations.  Several years ago, when the clergy sex abuse crisis was becoming prominent in the news media, the Archdiocese of Washington decided to launch "dialog" sessions with area Catholics by sending a panel of "experts" to various churches.  The first such session occurred at St Raphael's in Rockville.  Naturally they came with talking points.  Among them..

• The clergy sex abuse was no different than pedophilia found in other circles of society; that is homosexuality wasn't a major factor.
• There would be financial repercussions to Catholics as lawsuits would be paid from insurance policies.

They made what they now consider to be a mistake; they opened the floor for our questions.  We made plain that we weren't buying the yarn.  In regard to the first point, we reiterated that we were examining the sex abuse that was occurring among Roman Catholic clergy, not general pedophilia.  We weren't going to compare apples versus oranges.  We pointed out that over 90% of the victims of perverted clergy were boys, so indeed the problem lay at the feet of homosexuals within the clergy.

In regard to the second point, we let them know that the insurance premiums were being paid from our collection-plate dollars, and that those premiums would be skyrocketing as a result of the mess.  In hindsight, I think we can see from where Obama got his crackpot idea of his mandate "accommodation" for religious organizations.  Before it was Obama's crackpot idea, it was the bishops' crackpot idea!

That first meeting at St. Raphael's was also the last meeting. We now see that the archdiocese was only attempting "damage control" and that we weren't buying it.  From the perspective of the archdiocese, the meeting was a miserable flop - but an eye-opener for the rest of us.

Click here if you can't see embedded video.

John Jay Study - Another Failed Damage Control Effort

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to study the clergy sex abuse problem.  The study is released and published on the USCCB website.

It should surprise no one that this study does not acknowledge any correlation between gay clergy and this crisis - despite the fact that 90% of the victims were post pubescent males.  They ignore the proverbial elephant in the living room, in deference to political correctness; they've learned nothing over the years, and I'll elaborate on that later.  Just bear in mind that the USCCB funded this study.

This glaring omission was not overlooked by too many people.  Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, wrote a commentary that appeared in the National Catholic Register.  In it he skewers the lack of logic behind the JJ's - and the USCCB's - denial of the responsibility of gay clergy.  He does so by pointing out how the study contradicts itself.  Please read it.

Now I direct your attention to an article penned by Brian Clowse of Human Life International last year.  Why is that relevant?  It is VERY relevant because a friend of mine just posted this article to the USCCB's facebook page: and subsequently found himself banned from that page!  That is NOT a coincidence!

Earlier I promised elaboration on my "elephant in the living room" point.  Here it is.  Several years ago, shortly after the sex scandals became public news, the Archdiocese of Washington announced a series of "dialog sessions" to discuss the crisis and what the diocese was doing about it.  They announced that their first meeting would be held at St Raphael's in Rockville.  So I, and many others, attended.  It was basically a panel discussion, with the panel being various folks chosen by the Archdiocese; I cannot remember the composition of that panel.  At any rate, they too tried to downplay the correlation between homosexuality and the abuse crisis.  During the question-and-answer session, they quickly learned that we would not let them get away with that, well, bovine excretement.  We could see on the panel members' faces that they were expecting us to be docile and naive, and were almost afraid when we didn't live down to their hopes.  Thus ended the first - and last - "dialog session".

I'll end this post with a Vortex perspective on the John Jay study.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

From The "Gay Chutzpah" Department

I just read on Lifesitenews that "bishop (?)" Gene Robinson, the open gay who is commonly held to be clergy, is trying to tell Pope Benedict XVI how to fix the clergy sex abuse crisis in the Church.  I kid you not!  Naturally Robinson declares that there is no connection between homosexuality and this plague!  Understand that?  No connection whatsoever!  Just because 90% of the cases involve the buggering of adolescent boys (as opposed to girls) doesn't mean there's one bit of homosexual impetus - that 90% is the merest of coincidences - right?

Meanwhile, traditional Anglicans, fed up with the departure from Scripture as typified by Robinson, have requested entrance into the Roman Catholic Church.  I suppose that's part of the "coincidence", too?

Gays Behind the Media Attacks on the Pope?

Much of what Mr Voris says in this clip corroborates what I and others have been saying: that the mass/mainstream/liberal media types have all been rather resolute in glossing over the obvious gay nature of the sex abuse problem.  What he does emphasize is the gay influence over that same media.  That does go a long way in terms of explaining the mentality and motives behind the attacks on the Pope. 

They STILL Persist in Denying the Gay Roots of the Clergy Sex Crisis

Having a bunch of letters and degrees attached to your name and the letters "Dr" in front of it do not necessarily mean the owner of the name has two firing neurons between his/her ears.  It could also mean that they're pandering to the gays in high places.  At any rate, this article gives us all an idea of why the gay priests were able to prey on young men for so long.

In this article, we read that Margaret Smith, a John Jay College criminologist, says that Bill Donohue "drew an unwarranted conclusion" in asserting that most of the abusers were gay."  Of course she must be right!  Simply because 81% of the incidents involved the rapes of young men doesn't imply any homosexual impetus at all!  Right?  Right???

I seem to recall an old saying: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, in all likelihood, it is a duck!"  This saying arose from a mental ability once known as "common sense".  In academe, that ability is not so common anymore.

Fr. Fessio on the New York Times Scam-Slander Against the Pope

I do urge you to read what Fr. Fessio has to say in its entirety.  I point out a few of the key concepts that stood out to me as being key.  He rightly describes as slander what the Times et al are doing.  Then he points out some similarities between slander and the sexual abuse: "I'm sure many will disagree with such a harsh assessment, but perhaps they need to contemplate more seriously the parallels between molestation and slander, parallels that are real enough regardless of differences in degree and kind. (Most of us, I think, would rather be slandered than sexually violated. I am not at all making light of rape, molestation, or abuse, which are despicable and vile sins.) Both sexual molestation and public slander are violations of a person's dignity and innocence. Both isolate the victim from good and healthy relationships. Both destroy or seriously harm a person's ability to function properly, to live a full life." 

Then he states succinctly what the Times is attempting: "Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!"   Again, I urge you to read the whole thing.

Now can we say out loud, "New York Times!  Give it up already!  The gig is over!  You have been exposed for the anti-Catholic bigots that you are!  No wonder your subscriptions are in a steady state of decline!"

New York - Former Mayor Ed Koch Rebukes the Times' Anti-Catholic Bigotry

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch posted an article in the online edition of the Jerusalem Post defending the Holy Father and the Catholic Church against the bigotry-motivated attacks of the New York Times.  He hits the nail on the head quite a few times.  One of the key points that he spells out clearly is the motivation behind these unabashed attacks: "The reason, I believe, for the constant assaults is that there are many in the media, and some Catholics as well as many in the public, who object to and are incensed by positions the Church holds, including opposition to all abortions, opposition to gay sex and same-sex marriage, retention of celibacy rules for priests, exclusion of women from the clergy, opposition to birth control measures involving condoms and prescription drugs and opposition to civil divorce. My good friend, John Cardinal O'Connor, once said, "The Church is not a salad bar, from which to pick and choose what pleases you." The Church has the right to demand fulfillment of all of its religious obligations by its parishioners, and indeed a right to espouse its beliefs generally."  He mentioned his own disagreement with Church beliefs, but did acknowledge the Church's right to its tenets.

He then directly rebuked the Times' duplicity: "Of course, the media should report to the public any new facts bearing upon the issue of child molestation, but its objectivity and credibility are damaged when the New York Times declines to publish an op-ed offered by New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the issue of anti-Catholicism and offers instead to publish a letter to the editor, which is much shorter and less prominent than an op-ed."

He then acknowledged his belief that the Church is a "force for good".  I thank the former mayor for coming to the defense of the Church (more than some Catholics have done).  I pray that he be fortified against the rancor that his article undoubtedly inspired.  More importantly, I pray that the glimmer of light that he has obviously received increase and that he himself will find his way to Christ and the Church.