Friday, August 31, 2018
Thursday, August 30, 2018
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.
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.
Cardinal Wuerl - Fugitive From US Justice?
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
A Life Of Prayer And Penance??
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
More On The Vigano Statement
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.
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
The Pope's Odd Response To Vigano's Testimony
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
BREAKING - Former Papal Nuncio To The US Testifies That Pope Francis Participated In McCarrick Coverup
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.
George Neumayr Barred From Entering Church Below Wuerl's Residence
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).
Heretical Filth On Website Of Archdiocese Of Baltimore
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.
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
