Their plan was to first absorb Catholic philosophy and teaching in the seminaries so as to give them inside access to masterfully communicate and pull the Catholic hierarchy away from their traditional roots, so that they in turn would embrace revolutionary ideas and become pawns of ecclesial subversion. The Leninist “clenched fist” ideal would now be applied in a spiritual way where the “empowerment of the laity” would be a means of overthrowing the Church’s monarchical structure, so that a new sense of democracy and religious liberty would take precedence over the established rule of religion issuing from the Seat of Peter. Hence we have the modern-day role of lay Eucharistic ministers that are supposedly empowered to perform the priestly function of giving Communion. Eucharistic ministers indeed have been empowered, but their empowerment is from the dark forces. What we’re seeing today is Marxism in full swing. The insidious efforts of communists to infiltrate the Church are now manifest through this and other like practices, e.g. women lectors, lay liturgists. It was a well orchestrated plan to undermine the priesthood so that spiritual revolution would later ensue under the pretext of a “renewal.” Bella Dodd said in the early 50s: “In the 1930s we put eleven-hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.” Twelve years before Vatican II, she said, “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church.” She predicted that the changes they would implement would be so drastic that “you will not recognize the Catholic Church.” Dodd explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by communists. Her work as a communist was to give the Church a complex about its heritage by labeling “the Church of the past as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries.” The focal point of attack would be the Holy Eucharist, as we read in the memoirs of communist agent AA 1025, whose briefcase was discovered after being killed in an auto accident in the mid-sixties. “To weaken more the notion of ‘Real presence’ of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian Chant, but a music in jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified stern attitudes. Moreover, the faithful will have to break themselves from the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion…. Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased.” Again AA 1025 says, “In the Mass, the words ‘Real Presence’ and ‘Transubstantiation’ must be deleted. We shall speak of ‘Meal’ and ‘Eucharist’ instead. We shall destroy the Offertory and play down the Consecration and, at the same time, we shall stress the part played by the people. In the Mass, as it is today, the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable. He appears to offer his Mass to the great Crucifix hanging over the ornate altar. We shall pull down the Crucifix, substitute a table for the altar, and turn it around so that the priest may assume a presidential function. The priest will speak to the people much more than before. In this manner the Mass will gradually cease to be regarded as an act of adoration to God, and will become a gathering and an act of human brotherhood.” The foregoing coincides with leaked plans of the Masonic P2 Lodge in Italy that were issued just before Vatican II. Consider this excerpt from their 34 guidelines that were made effective March 1962. “Get women and laity to give Communion, say that this is the Age of the Laity. Start giving Communion in the hand like the Protestants, instead of on the tongue, say that Christ did it this way. Collect some for Satan Masses.” Can we understand now why the Church today has been virtually overthrown by the post-conciliar revolution? Vatican II opened its doors and invited these agents of Satan to sit in on the Council and participate in the drafting of its documents. Or hadn’t it occurred to us why the 1964 Vatican II Instruction Inter Oecumenicicommanded that the traditional prayer to St. Michael at the end of Mass be “suppressed?” (Article 48) Obviously the old devil didn’t want the faithful praying against him. The same document states: “The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people.” (Article 91) This coincides with the memoirs of the above mentioned agent who said, “We shall stress the part played by the people” and who complained that “the priest turns his back to the people and fills a sacrificial function which is intolerable.” There is no arguing that the faithful are called to have “active participation” in Christ, but this participation will consist in silent meditation on the Passion and contemplation on the Sacred Mysteries, not in assuming priestly functions or engaging in liturgical busy-body activity. We are called to sanctify our souls and to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), which means we must respect Christ’s monarchical authority and not attempt to assume functions which we are not authorized to perform. If the Catholic hierarchy would simply follow rules and regulations and keep with the Church’s 2000-year tradition of having only consecrated priests administer Communion, their household wouldn’t be in such a shambles today. If heresy and apostasy now abound, it’s because the hierarchy has lost confidence in the rule of tradition, fulfilling St. Paul’s prophecy: “There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but… will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.” (2 Timothy 4:3) If priests would dump their modernist inventions and let down their nets the traditional way, they would again bring up a marvelous catch for Christ, but if they continue on their present path of change and “renewal,” they will continue laboring all night in the dark as they have since the Council. If the church today is largely ignorant of the physical and supernatural presence of Christ in his sanctuary, it is because of these socialist lay-empowerment movements through which the Eucharist has been profaned. The Eucharist is the very heart of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve, therefore the members of Christ are dead members if they will not adore His True Body in the manner commanded by Christ, namely, by receiving on the tongue and from a priest only. It was not without reason that St. Basil declared Communion in the hand to be “a great fault.” St. Thomas Aquinas taught: “Because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament.” (Summa Theologica) The Council of Trent reaffirmed the Church’s continuous teaching forbidding lay people from administering Communion. “It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church… as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained.” – The Catechism of the Council of Trent St. Paul warns that “whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood of the Lord… For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11: 27,29) Hence it would be better never to receive Communion than to go up everyday in cafeteria fashion and receive from people who are not empowered to administer the Body of Christ. Though it has become a widely accepted “common-law” practice today, the use of Eucharistic ministers at Mass is illicit in that it radically breaks with the Church’s 2000-year tradition. The argument that Pope John Paul II sanctioned the use of Eucharistic ministers holds no water, since he was very much against this practice. The following is from his Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued March 25, 2004. “If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers [priests] for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.” (Article 157) How is it that most Catholic parishes today are embroiled in this lay ministry program in spite of this and other like prohibitions? It’s because the tumor of communism continues to spread its cancerous errors throughout the Church. The ugly hand of communism has truly reached in to desecrate the Holy Eucharist. Let us pray that the pope will finally consecrate Russia to the Blessed Virgin, so that the red tumor can be eradicated and health can be restored to Christ’s Mystical Body
What anguish the Body suffers in such exposure and revelations in these times....the purification of the world continues. New sexual abuse allegations leveled against Cardinal McCarrick Washington D.C., Jul 19, 2018 / 03:15 pm (CNA).- A Virginia man filed a police report Monday, alleging that from the age of 11 he was sexually abused and assaulted serially by now-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was a priest of the Archdiocese of New York when the abuse was alleged to have begun. The New York Times reported July 19 the man’s allegation, that McCarrick began sexually abusing him in 1969, when the priest was 39 and the man, “James,” whose full name has not been reported, was 11 years old. McCarrick was reportedly a friend to the alleged victim’s family. The man says that he continued to be sexually abused by McCarrick for almost two decades, the Times reported. The man claims that the abuse contributed to alcohol and drug habits that plagued him for years. He also says that he attempted to disclose the abuse to his father several years after it began, but was disbelieved, according to the Times. In 1969, when the abuse is alleged to have begun, McCarrick ended a four-year term as president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, and became assistant secretary for education in the Archdiocese of New York. In 1977, he become auxiliary bishop of New York, and later became the Bishop of Metuchen, Archbishop of Newark, and, eventually, Archbishop of Washington. Criminal statutes of limitation may prevent McCarrick from being charged with crimes relating to the abuse alleged Monday. A canonical statute of limitations, known technically as prescription, might also preclude the possibility that McCarrick face canonical charges for the alleged abuse, although the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is authorized to waive that statute in certain circumstances. Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, told CNA Thursday that the archdiocese learned of these allegations only when the New York Times article was published. The archdiocese has not heard from law enforcement agencies about this matter, or from the alleged victim or his attorney, Zwilling said, adding that he hopes the victim or his attorney will contact the archdiocese, directly, or through the archdiocese’s Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program, an independently managed entity designed to assist victims of clerical sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of New York. A source close to McCarrick told CNA that he had not received any official notification of the allegation and is therefore unable to respond. The source said the cardinal is committed to following the processes put in place by Church authorities regarding the allegations. On June 20, the Archdiocese of New York, announced that it had concluded an investigation into a different allegation that McCarrick had sexually abused a teenager, finding the claim to be “credible and substantiated.” The Vatican was informed of that accusation, and as a result, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, by order of Pope Francis, prohibited McCarrick, 88, from public ministry. Since that announcement, media reports have detailed additional allegations, charging that McCarrick sexually abused, assaulted, or coerced seminarians and young priests during his time as a bishop. The Diocese of Metuchen and Archdiocese of Newark disclosed that they had recevied reports that McCarrick engaged in sexual misconduct with adults, and reached legal and financial settlements in two cases. The cardinal is prohibited from contact with minors in the Archdiocese of Washington, pursuant to the archdiocesan safe environment polices, a spokesman for the archdiocese told CNA, though that prohibition was not been publicly announced when McCarrick's prohibition from public ministry June 20. Until recently, McCarrick was resident at a DC-area Catholic nursing-care facility administered by religious sisters, sources tell CNA that he is no longer living there. The Vatican has not announced if McCarrick will face canonical charges related to the initial allegation of sexual abuse. Sources tell CNA that the matter is being addressed at the Vatican under the direct supervision of Pope Francis. This story was updated July 20 and is developing. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ions-leveled-against-cardinal-mccarrick-47969
When is this going to end? It is amazing to see how Satan has penetrated the Church to such an incredible depth, yet he can’t destroy it. Why is Our Lord allowing this...I believe this horrifyingly dark situation the Church is currently undergoing in all fronts may be just the preamble to a never seen renewal...if we correspond as we should. Mariano Restrepo, talking about the current scandals, commented how our Lord allowed Judas to be among the 12 until the very end - He never lost hope on him even though He knew. Moreover Jesus, knowing what he knew, entrusted him with the treasury, how crazy by our human standards! It is incredible to see what is happening with our clergy at the highest levels, what they say and do, and see how Our Lord is soooo patient and quiet, like He was during his passion. Like Our Lord we should not make scandal and not allow ourselves and others to be scandalized - He can fix it! In fact, only He can by working through us. The path of complete surrender to Him is these days the only possible one - the Lord seems to leave us no other option, no room for half heartedness in these times. So yes, something big and good is coming out of the current Satanic circus. Mary assist us in this dark hour!
As our Lord endured his scourging and cruel death on the Cross so that the apostles eyes were opened and we 2000+ years later would see and believe, so too we must suffer. At this time I believe we are at the scourging, our Lord's bride is being totally ripped apart in every way and at the final moment of her passion. As our Lord Jesus suffered a cruel scourging beyond belief so too must his bride. We will suffer much more before the walk of Calvary, as many eyes have not opened yet. It is truly heartwrenching to watch. I now know how Mary watched as her son made his way carrying the cross of the world, unable to stop the nightmare. I pray for the strength to endure, as I pray for all to wake up.
Jarg thank you for this. I think I needed to be reminded. Complete surrender and absolute faith that all this has been permitted for a reason. Once many years ago I had a very disturbing economic situation. I stormed heaven and was just sure God would fix it. He didn’t. Everything got worse! At the moment it seemed to be fix d another crisis occurred. I got angry and told the Lord I was very angry. That I thoughtHe was all good and could not understand why He would do this to us. I remember wailing “it’s not fair!” In my inner heart I heard “it wasn’t fair when I hung on the Cross” and I—weak and of little faith I’m ashamed to say—answered “but You are God. You could do it. I can’t!” All at once—seriously within hours—everything resolved. Everything! And it was much better than what I had asked for and I realiz d that all those delays had actually kept us from making a mistake financially that would have been disastrous. Very very ashamed I told Him how sorry I was for doubting Him. He answered in my inner heart “remember this.” And I have remembered. “All things work for good for those who are called by God...”. But the horrors going on in the world and especially in the Church blindsided me. And made me forget. ( oh me of little faith) Thankyou for reminding me!
http://theweek.com/articles/785922/catholic-church-cesspool The Catholic Church is a cesspool Matthew Walther July 23, 2018 More than a decade and a half after the septic holding tank was overturned in Boston, the unfathomable noxious waste of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in this country is still seeping out in fetid drips. As a Catholic, I believe that the Church was founded by the apostle St. Peter at the behest of Christ Himself. I also believe that it was for many years and will for many more still remain a cesspool. A month ago, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, D.C., was removed from public ministry after credible allegations were made that he had abused a 16-year-old altar boy in 1971. Almost immediately after the announcement was made, it was revealed that at least two settlements had been made with victims — both of them adults at the time of the assaults — of McCarrick in the last decade. Now The New York Times reports that McCarrick began molesting a boy identified only as "James" when the latter was 11. This was a boy whom the future cardinal had himself baptized only two weeks after his ordination to the sacrificing priesthood. The abuse continued for 20 years. McCarrick allegedly referred to James as his "special boy" and insisted that the child and his siblings call him "Uncle Ted." When James tried to tell his parents about the things his "uncle" forced him to do, he was told that he must be lying. (Through a spokesperson, McCarrick declined to respond to the Times' request for comment. He has said elsewhere that he is cooperating with the Church's investigation of the allegations.) ... ... I think it should be admitted, too, that canonizing Pope John Paul II, under whom the abuse crisis unfolded, was a mistake. Do not misunderstand me. I have no doubt that he is in heaven. But when the Church tells us that someone is a saint she is not merely declaring that the individual in question died in a state of grace and now enjoys the beatific vision. She is offering the saint to the faithful as an exemplar of Christian virtue. Saints embody these virtues according to their stations in life. No one will look back at the papacy of John Paul II in 100 years and judge it favorably. The many failures of his pontificate were not entirely or perhaps even mostly his fault and I'm sure he tried as hard as he could; but the glorious roll of saints and martyrs is not a youth soccer league. His hasty canonization was a marketing triumph for the same wishy-washy conservatives who tried to insist simultaneously that there were no such things as monsters and that their shining Polish prince had slain them all. They were lying to themselves and to the rest of us. Once more I say: Never again. None of this should be taken to suggest that the clergy is entirely given over to perverts and liars and hypocrites. There are many priests and at least one bishop I have known whom I love, to whom I owe my very soul. And the unyielding, George Smiley-like pursuit of abusers by good men in the hierarchy has made things much better. But the damage has already been done. The faith of millions has been undermined and in far too many cases extinguished forever. The rest of us who persist somehow in the hope of Christ must pray not only for the victims but for their abusers. This is the hardest teaching of all. Read the rest at the link
Here is some bad news and some good news related to the Church in the following two posts. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews Bishops have been on a losing streak in U.S. political arena OPINION by Christopher Manion | July 20, 2018 | https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishops-have-been-on-a-losing-streak-in-u.s.-political-arena July 20, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — America’s politicized Catholic bishops – and unfortunately, that means most of them – have had a pretty bad year. Their campaign demanding amnesty for illegal aliens and a wide-open border policy has been a flop. Consider: They opposed two immigration bills in Congress for not going far enough, but both failed for going too far. Some bishops are so frustrated that they lash out at politicians, even strong-pro-lifers who oppose Obama’s unconstitutional “Dreamers” amnesty. Amnesty is still the bishops’ prime mandate. But they have also suffered setbacks at the Supreme Court. First, the justices ruled that President Trump’s temporary ban on travel to the U.S. from several terror-ridden countries was a proper exercise of his powers as chief executive. Curiously, bishops opposed the ban on the basis of “religious liberty” for Muslims, even though the countries affected included Venezuela and North Korea. Bishops lost again in Janus v. AFSCME, when the court ruled that public employees, including millions of Catholics, could not be required to pay hefty dues to unions that support abortion rights and other objective evils. Surprisingly, the USCCB supported the monopoly power of the left-wing unions, and not the religious liberty of Catholics. A prominent bishop with degrees in both canon and civil law disagreed, however. Let’s face it. America’s Catholic bishops have opposed Donald Trump ever since he declared his candidacy three years ago. To be sure, they have quietly acknowledged his historic pro-life, pro-religious liberty policies. His views on the HHS mandate, UN abortion funding, Planned Parenthood funding, and the Mexico City policy have been outstanding. Alas, that’s not enough for the lobbyists at the bishops’ Washington D.C. USCCB headquarters. These “experts,” paid with contributions from the faithful, spend most of their time attacking the administration on issues like health care, refugee policy, Cuba policy, the Paris Agreement, the death penalty, the weather, immigration, foreign aid, sanctuary cities, deportations, and border security. If these losses weren’t enough, last month a new disaster struck. Still recoiling from their political setbacks, the bishops were stunned by reports of sexual abuse of a minor by one of the most powerful Catholic prelates in recent American history, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the now-retired Archbishop of Washington. While the alleged crime occurred some 50 years ago, bishops in the Metuchen and Newark, New Jersey dioceses revealed that McCarrick had more recently been accused of “sexual misconduct” on three different occasions as bishop there. Two of them resulted in secret settlements. Coverups never work, and they didn’t this time. The McCarrick news rocked the American church. Reports of his homosexual overtures to seminarians and priests had circulated for years, but his targets would not go on the record (Update: now former seminarian Mark Crawford has). After all, McCarrick was a powerful man who could ruin any clerical career – and a bishop’s power is total and final. McCarrick was a bishop for more than 40 years. How many careers did he promote because of his sexual addiction? How many careers did he ruin? And how many prelates covered up for their brother bishop? USCCB officials have curtly admitted that there are a lot of homosexuals in the Catholic clergy. It’s not a subject they like to talk about, and they certainly didn’t want the McCarrick revelations to open the door to more questions. What to do? Desperate to avoid more revelations, bishops chose to change the subject to their favorite location – the Mexican border. Bishops chose to make public the news about McCarrick in the midst of a media blitz revealing the shocking fact that criminal aliens apprehended at the border were incarcerated in jails designed for adults, and children crossing the border were housed in different facilities, free of felons, rapists, and murderers. Anxious to put the McCarrick scandal behind them, the bishops seized on this fake news with a vengeance. Not only could they blame somebody else for abusing minors, they could also manipulate the “crisis” to milk more government funding for their NGOs, funded by the U.S. government to care for foreign minors, refugees, and illegals. Many Catholics are unaware that our bishops receive hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year from the federal government. Our shepherds seldom disclose that fact, but those funds have been flowing for years, and the hierarchy’s secrecy has invited abuse, fraud, and outright dishonesty. Case in point: In January 2008, the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, was caring for a 15-year-old Guatemalan girl under a federal grant from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). When they discovered she was pregnant, employees of Richmond Catholic Charities took her secretly to procure an abortion. The diocese covered up the incident, even paying for the employees’ silence, for months. But when HHS began its own investigation in April, three USCCB officials informed all 350 of their brother bishops of the incident in a letter dated April 23. No bishop told the public until this writer exposed the scandal and the country-wide cover-up in June – two months later. During my investigation, I learned that Catholics in the Bush administration had worked hard to get that multimillion-dollar grant for the USCCB. One sorely disappointed Catholic official told me, “It’s a shame that the U.S. government has higher moral standards than our Catholic bishops.” Why the silence? Well, the bishops really needed that money. As Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas once observed, donations from the faithful have plummeted since the abuse-and-cover-up scandals broke into the open in 2002. In the 15 years since, our bishops have chosen to make up for that drop in voluntary contributions by competing with other NGOs for taxpayer funding. Since 2007, the USCCB has received $369 million in the single HHS grant category of “care for immigrants and refugees.” While the grant amounts rose steadily under Obama, from $24 million in FY 2009 to $39 million in FY 2017, funding under Trump in FY 2018 has fallen by a third, to just under $26 million. That’s why the bishops are desperate. continued...
continued from above... So here’s how the bishops have reacted: at their meeting in Fort Lauderdale last month, bishops didn’t mention McCarrick. No, the bishops beat only one drum: bash the border policies of Trump (but not of the generous Obama, whose administration had the same policy), bash the Border Patrol, and threaten Catholic government employees with being excommunicated or barred from receiving Communion. You’ve got to admire their audacity. When Tucson Bishop Edward Weisenburger threatened the Border Patrol in Fort Lauderdale, the laity were outraged. After all, we asked, why had he never bothered publicly to criticize his own congressman, a 100 percent pro-abortion Catholic? So two weeks later, the bishops tried putting on the white hats. In a widely-publicized visit to a border residence for minors, USCCB president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo oozed with charity. “There are no villains,” he said. Yes, the Cardinal absolved Catholic Border Patrol agents doing their jobs, but he also absolved Mexico’s criminal Coyotes. Those drug gangs charge some $5,000 a head to traffic the illegals to the U.S. border in the first place. Unlike the Border Patrol, the Coyotes are notorious for abandoning women and children in the desert if they can’t keep up. But “there are no villains.” Why the absolution? Unfortunately, the Coyotes supply the bishops’ NGOs with a steady stream of federally-funded customers. And that means income. So prelates like Los Angeles Archbishop José Gómez use the “crisis” to advocate lobbying Congress for amnesty, teaching illegals to evade the law, and, of course, open the borders to more illegals, who will bring with them more federal funding for the bishops’ NGOs. Coyotes, cover-ups and cash. What have America’s bishops learned from the scandals? Nothing. **** LGBT extremists have destroyed the Saint Patrick’s Day parade in Boston Jul 20, 2018 By Amy Contrada OPINION **** Archbishop Chaput signs lay-led declaration in support of Humanae Vitae Jul 19, 2018 By Lisa Bourne **** Cardinal launches national prayer campaign for Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade Jul 20, 2018 By Lisa Bourne
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/07/the-problem-of-sexually-active-priests The Problem of Sexually Active Priests | Rev. Thomas V. Berg A “credible and substantiated” allegation of sexual abuse of a minor against Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, new details of his emotional and sexual exploitation of Catholic seminarians, and an allegation of a years-long abusive relationship with another young man have led many to ask how sexual abuse committed by a high-ranking cleric could go undetected for so many years. Many answers can be offered, but one fact that has been overlooked for too long is the connection between priests who abuse minors and priests who are sexually active with adults. Toleration of the latter sin has made it harder to detect, criticize, and root out the former. As Richard Sipe, a psychiatrist and former Benedictine monk who has treated dozens of sexually abusive priests and written extensively on the problem of sexually active clergy, observes: [A] community that publicly proclaims the sexual safety of its members, and at the same time tolerates sexual activity by them, restricts the ability of bishops, vicars, pastors and priests to properly supervise, discipline, and explore the criminal activities of priests who abuse children. Exposure of one part of the system—abusive priests—necessarily threatens to expose a whole system that supports a lack of wide-scale celibate conformity within the priesthood. We can’t prevent the sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults by clergy while habitual and widespread failures in celibacy are left unchecked. Most experts who have studied the phenomenon of sexual activity by clerics agree that the offenders do not constitute a large percentage of priests—though the incidence is difficult to measure with any accuracy, given the success with which sexually active clerics, especially those who pursue a gay lifestyle, are able to cover their tracks. Nevertheless, most priests I know would estimate, as I do, that in dioceses in the United States, at least 5 percent of the clergy in a given diocese are or have been sexually active with consenting adults since their ordination. Most of us would venture that the majority of sexually active clergy participate in networks of gay priests, networks that maintain a code of silence out of mutual fear of being discovered. I don’t believe most bishops are content to tolerate the sexual activity of clerics in their dioceses. Instead, they often feel confounded as to how to address and stop it. According to the Code of Canon Law, c. 392 § 2, bishops are “to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesial discipline, especially regarding the ministry of the word, the celebration of the sacraments and sacramentals, the worship of God and the veneration of the saints, and the administration of goods.” If bishops are serious about being vigilant on behalf of ecclesiastical discipline, they will take a serious look at how they handle allegations of sexual relations of priests with adults. Here are five things faithful bishops can do. 1. Be unambiguous in your embrace of the Church’s teaching on sexual morality—and teach it. A bishop should have a track record of clearly and unambiguously embracing the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, including the issue of same-sex sexual activity. If there is little or no evidence that a bishop has publicly taught or defended the Church’s teaching on sexual morality, he should be publicly challenged to give an accounting. Bishops must not tacitly tolerate clerics in their dioceses who openly support gay culture and its message of “Pride.” Where there is any indication that Catholic priests in his jurisdiction, or putative Catholic apostolates, are publicly endorsing the gay lifestyle or transmitting ambiguous or confusing messages to the faithful, faithful bishops must intervene. Such apostolates must not be allowed to operate in the diocese. Such clarity is not at odds with a genuine pastoral outreach and accompaniment of Catholics who experience same-sex attraction (SSA). But such accompaniment must go hand-in-hand with true teaching about human sexuality. Bishops should be particularly solicitous of and present to those Catholics who live with SSA and strive to embrace the Church’s teaching on same-sex sexual behavior. Bishops would do well to be visibly and publicly supportive of Courage and Encourage apostolates, welcoming their collaboration. 2. Create a culture in which laity and clergy can come to you personally with concerns—without fear of reprisal. Sadly, when Catholic lay persons muster the courage to raise a concern about a possibly offending cleric, bishops are often reluctant to meet face-to-face. The habit of hiding behind lawyers and legalities cripples many bishops in what should be a natural expression of their pastoral solicitude. Often, once issues have been raised, lay persons are left to wait and wonder: Will the bishop do anything? For priests, who depend for their livelihood on the Church, the fear of retribution can be paralyzing: What will the consequences be if I report this to my bishop? Will there be a price to pay? It is awful to think that such reprisals can happen, but they have happened in the past and can happen in the future. Networks of sexually active clerics, especially gay priests, are often entwined with diocesan power structures of control and governance. They often have deep influence over matters such as assignments, promotion, and finance. Faithful priests who dare to confront these realities will find themselves in a David-and-Goliath mismatch. Bishops need to assure whistleblowers that they will not be subject to punitive actions or retributions for going on the record with a concern or allegation. Face-to-face meetings between the bishop and concerned parties can go a long way to create a culture of trust. Parameters can be agreed upon beforehand to ensure that these encounters unfold with professionalism and respect. A bishop’s responsiveness must also include follow-up communication with interested parties, laying out how he intends to respond. The valid concerns of clergy and laity cannot fall on his deaf ears.
Con’t 3. Foster priestly fraternity. A caring connection between bishop and priests can go a long way toward heading off the kind of disillusionment and isolation that may lead a priest to fail in chastity. Bishops can take any number of initiatives in this direction, by sponsoring periodic priest retreats, priest support groups, and other types of worthwhile encounters. Priests must seek and receive regular and solid spiritual direction, and newly ordained priests must be given close attention through effective programs of priest-to-priest mentoring. Priests, for their part, need to be ready to do their part in cultivating priestly fraternity. Sustaining personal friendships is an art form, and it requires hard work. Where there is genuine priestly fraternity, there can thrive as well the rare flower of priestly fraternal correction. Priests must find the moral courage to confront a brother priest in fraternal charity, to ask frank and probing questions about observed behavior that raises concerns, especially when it involves boundary violations, spending habits, alcohol, questionable diversions, or simply ambiguous or secretive behavior. 4. Be transparent, vulnerable, and accountable. A bishop once assured me that bishops hold each other accountable far more than Catholics in the pews or the mainstream media realize. He insisted that bishops engage and challenge each other frequently and at times forcefully—just that it’s done privately. Most Catholics, especially those who work closely with bishops, would find such an optimistic picture highly questionable, not to say laughable. The American hierarchy, with few exceptions, still bristles at the mere suggestion of bishop accountability. Here, faithful bishops must rise to the occasion to change episcopal culture, beginning in their own dioceses. Faithful bishops will make clear to all observers that they are not part of an episcopal caste that protects its own and follows a code of public silence in the face of a brother bishop’s wrongdoing. Public silence from bishops on matters of episcopal malfeasance has long been a scandal. That silence inspires confusion, anger, sadness, and distrust among the laity, and it can devastate priestly morale. How often does a misguided and false prudence lead bishops—with too few exceptions—to sustain their public silence in the face of the very public failures of their brothers? Faithful and courageous bishops simply have no choice in our day but to challenge and fraternally correct one another, even and especially in public. That means incurring the wrath of bishops who continue to operate as an old boys’ club that sees itself as above scrutiny, much less public criticism. 5. Establish an independent watchdog to monitor the public and private behavior of clergy. This idea comes from a former prosecutor and seasoned diocesan lawyer who says he has been suggesting it for years, but to no avail. The bishop would establish a confidential advisor, authorized to act as an independent watchdog to monitor priests and permanent deacons, as well as those serving in positions of leadership in the diocesan curia. This person—a non-cleric with background in law and ideally law enforcement—would have full access and independence to receive and investigate anonymous concerns about any member of the clergy, including by retaining private investigators as the case may warrant. And though the confidential advisor would report directly to the bishop, in order to assure a higher standard of transparency and accountability, the purview of existing diocesan review boards could be expanded beyond the current role of advising bishops in the assessment of allegations of sexual abuse of minors, to include allegations of clerical sexual involvement with adults. The confidential advisor could be assisted by the review board in the investigation of allegations and in detailing a final report and recommendations to the bishop. The confidential advisor could also share that report with regional bishops as a further safeguard against possible mishandling of the case. *** The Church looks to its bishops to identify wayward priests, to challenge them to repentance, and to assist them in reintegrating their broken lives. More often than not, and certainly in the case of habitual offenders, this will mean—for the good of all involved—their return to the lay state. A greater focus from the nation’s bishops on the problem of sexually active clerics could encourage those victims of clerical sexual abuse and exploitation who have so far remained silent to come forward and be heard. It would contribute to recovering the moral stature of the office of bishop, which has been so disastrously eroded in the decade and a half since the crisis of clergy sexual abuse came to light. It would help to restore the Church’s credibility. And it would manifest the enduring presence of Christ in his Church, who never ceases “to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5: 26-27). Fr. Thomas Berg is professor of moral theology, vice rector, and director of admissions at St. Joseph’s Seminary (Dunwoodie). He is author of Hurting in the Church: A Way Forward for Wounded Catholics.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/07/promoting-predators Promoting Predators Articles by Philip Lawler What did the American bishops know, and when did they know it? This is the question everyone is asking in the wake of public revelations that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had, for years, preyed on seminarians who visited his beach house. It is a reasonable question, a necessary question. I hope that someday soon, a few brave bishops will begin asking it, too—and giving the restive Catholic faithful some answers. But it is not the most important question. For anyone exploring the corruption of the Catholic hierarchy, the question of how Cardinal McCarrick avoided exposure and prosecution, though important, is less critical than the question of how his rise through the ecclesiastical ranks continued, even while rumors about homosexual activities swirled around him. Why was McCarrick named archbishop of Washington, and given a cardinal’s red hat? Why was he allowed to promote his proteges, to serve special diplomatic assignments for the Vatican, to influence the selection of bishops and even of a Roman Pontiff, after his beach-house antics had become a matter of common knowledge? The more obvious question, the what-did-they-know-and-when question, admits of an easy, albeit unsatisfactory answer. McCarrick’s colleagues can say, more or less honestly, that they had heard reports about his approaches to seminarians, but did not know whether the reports were true. The question allows for an epistemological dodge: Other bishops did not really know, in the sense that they had no definitive proof. So they had an excuse for their failure to take action—or so they thought. Reporters, likewise, had heard the stories about McCarrick but had no proof. Rod Dreher and Julia Duin have written about their fruitless searches for a witness who would go on the record. Without personal testimony, they had only hearsay evidence. I experienced the same frustration. Nevertheless, I knew, as did many reporters covering Catholic affairs. By the year 2000, when McCarrick was named archbishop of Washington, many American bishops had received personal letters from some of the young men McCarrick had approached. A delegation of influential Catholics had traveled to Rome to warn Vatican officials about the scandal. Though no one had legal proof, everyone interested in the question had, at the very least, serious suspicions. Why would the Catholic hierarchy promote someone who was even suspected of homosexual predation? A personal anecdote: In 2003, a colleague asked me to join in an initiative, promoting a good cause. I was favorably inclined, until my colleague told me that Cardinal McCarrick would be a sponsor. At that point, I said that I wanted nothing to do with the project. (There was no need to explain to my colleague why I did not wish to be associated with the cardinal. He knew. Everybody knew.) Why were so many others, including American bishops and Vatican officials, willing and eager to ally with McCarrick, despite the fact that “everybody knew”? Who was promoting his interests? And whose interests was he promoting? After such a devastating scandal, any normal organization would do some forensic work, looking carefully at the records to see who had recommended McCarrick for higher office—and who had gained their status on his recommendation. Newark’s Cardinal Joseph Tobin (who, by the way, is regarded as one of McCarrick’s proteges) has said that the past month’s revelations point to a need for better policies and procedures within the Church. But the policies for dealing with a homosexual predator have always been in place. The problem has been the unwillingness of Church leaders to invoke the policies, to use the proper procedures. Or, to put it a bit differently: As the political experts remind us, personnel is policy. The failure of Church leaders to take action against McCarrick when they first heard of his offenses, perhaps twenty years ago, is evidence of the need for reform within the hierarchy. The fact that many prelates took action for McCarrick—making him their spokesman, enlisting his help, following his lead—speaks to the urgency of the crisis. Nor is this an exclusively American problem. Pope Francis has given prominent posts to cardinals who are tainted by scandal, and allowed them to remain in those posts despite mounting evidence against them. Take, for example, the Council of Cardinals—the nine cardinals who serve as the pontiff’s board of advisers on questions of Church reform. The coordinator of the group is Honduran Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, whose favored deputy, Bishop Juan Jose Pineda Fasquelle, resigned last week amid charges of both sexual abuse (with seminarians, again) and financial misconduct. Cardinal Maradiaga has likewise been accused of financial misconduct, having accepted tens of thousands of dollars from the Honduran government and deposited the funds in European banks. Perhaps he is innocent, but at best he is liable to questions. Since he has already reached the canonical retirement age of 75, it would be a simple matter to replace him as effective chairman of the pope’s advisory panel. To keep him in a high-profile post—a post dedicated to reform, no less—would send an unfortunate signal, countering the pope’s professed determination to root out corruption. The Council of Cardinals also includes Cardinal Francisco Errazuriz, the retired archbishop of Santiago, Chile. Back in May, when the active Chilean bishops resigned en masse because of the burgeoning sex-abuse scandal in that country, Cardinal Errazuriz was immune; he had retired eight years earlier. But he, too, has been a target for criticism, since he reportedly sought to persuade Vatican officials not to listen to complaints about a notorious Chilean priest. By September, when the Council of Cardinals meets again, Cardinal Errazuriz will be 85 years old, and again it would seem natural to replace him. To keep him on board would be another unsettling signal. To regain the credibility they have lost in recent decades, Catholic bishops in America and in Rome must do more than apologize for the transgressions of others. They must acknowledge their own offenses—their willingness to tolerate abusive clerics, to protect them, to promote them. In 2002, when the American bishops met in Dallas to discuss the burgeoning sex-abuse scandal, I was among the hundreds of reporters on hand. As we milled about the press room, I was struck by the convergence of journalists’ opinions. Colleagues from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other joined around the coffee machine, shaking their heads and saying of the assembled bishops, “They don’t get it.” A similar convergence has occurred since the McCarrick scandal erupted. The remedy for negligent bishops is diligent bishops. The answer to corrupt bishops will come from bishops dedicated to reform. In the first Scripture reading at Mass this past Sunday, Catholics heard the striking words of Jeremiah: “Woe to the shepherds who destroy the sheep of my pasture.” But the prophecy, dire in its condemnation of the abusive shepherds, provides some help for the long-suffering Catholic flock: “I will set shepherds over them who will care for them, and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall any be missing, says the Lord.” Surely there are at least a few shepherds out there, mindful of their people’s dismay, ready to speak out at last? Oremus. Philip Lawler is editor of Catholic World News and author of Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading his Flock.
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/thats-my-money-your-excellency That’s My Money, Your Excellency Closing our wallets on the lavender mafia by Church Militant • ChurchMilitant.com • July 24, 2018 4 Comments By Beverly Stevens Okay, I've had enough. Last week, the story broke that a high-ranking U.S. cardinal has been a homosexual predator for decades. Current Washington, D.C. archbishop Cdl. Donald Wuerl with former D.C. archbishop Cdl. Theodore McCarrick Masturbating priests, forcing seminarians to sleep with him at his beach house paid for by Church funds — a Big Cheese in the homosexual networks within the priesthood which create a culture of abuse within the Church. (For those of you who are clutching your pearls in denial, kindly check out the media reports below — but be forewarned about their graphic content.) This predator was appointed by JPII, over the objections of Americans who flew to Rome to voice them because they knew about his behavior. He was kept in office by Benedict and Francis. He was retired honorably, and now lives on the laity's support. Furthermore, members of the Catholic and secular media knew about his activities and said nothing. This is it, for me. I know I speak for hundreds of millions of Catholics, not just in America, but around the world, when I say the following to the Lavender Mafia in the Catholic hierarchy: Do you really think we are stupid? You are parasites on the Body of Christ. You have overseen the disastrous destruction of the Church in the West, and have worked overtime to spin the story so that you appear to be the helpless victims or even the fearless champions of mindless "change." Meanwhile, you do not believe in the Faith; easy to see because you don't espouse it. As a result, the Church is in a tailspin, hemorrhaging Catholics across the West — souls lost to cults, sects and atheistic despair. Vocations are down again, after a brief uptick during Benedict's pontificate. Meanwhile, the churches that represent the blood, sweat and tears of generations of Catholics are being sold on the real estate market to fuel fatuous pseudo-corporate "empowerment" programs to "revitalize" or "empower" (I forget which nauseating buzzword) "vibrant" parishes. This is not to mention your drug-fueled orgies where you assault our sons, or pay pennies for the services of other people's sons in poor countries. (Google "Sex abuse Saginaw Diocese") Preying on Seminarians Because of you, most of my generation will die without Last Rites. Why? You have sabotaged the future of the Faith by preventing honest young men with genuine vocations from entering our seminaries — calling them "rigid" when you read in their eyes that you cannot suborn them. And the ones you do admit to seminaries? I have spoken personally with dozens of them. Your seminary teachers prey on them, using every grooming and abusive tactic in the book. If they acquiesce, they are prey for blackmail their entire careers. If they refuse, they are openly humiliated and mocked, until they leave, their faith all but shattered, their psyches all but destroyed. As the mother of a son, here's what I told a young man in the Frankfurt, Germany seminary who told me and my husband that his teacher was openly mocking him at lunch gatherings because he had refused to have sex with him — knowing full well the boy was from a poor family which couldn't possibly afford to repay the tuition he would owe them if he quit. If that boy was my son I would personally wreck your offices. If that boy was my son I would personally wreck your offices. That's right. Tear all the freaking "artwork" off your walls, and throw them all through your windows. Bust every piece of glass I could find, and before the police got there, I would do enough damage that every boy in that seminary would know that at least one parent would not take this crap lying down. Solving the Problem But luckily for you, my son is not in a Catholic seminary. Instead, this is what I am going to do: I am going to close my wallet. And I am going to get Catholics all over the world to do the same thing. I am going to close my wallet. And I am going to get Catholics all over the world to do the same thing.Tweet So listen up, boys. We, the Catholics, demand the end of the Lavender Mafia. NOW. And no crap about "zero tolerance" à la the laughable "Dallas Charter." We demand that homosexual predators be immediately dismissed from our seminaries. We insist that bad bishops be removed from their sees. We demand that homosexual-promoting clerics be relieved of their positions. Giggling Over the Cosmopolitans I can hear you snickering over your Cosmopolitans, boys. "Who does this woman think she is?” Boys, in your world, Im a nobody. Except theres literally hundreds of millions of "nobody" Catholics just like me, and we are going to close our wallets. I can hear you tittering, and toasting each other. “What does she know about our sources of income?” Well, each bishop is responsible for his own diocese, right? And about 95 percent of that income comes from 5 percent of donors, right? So, boys, times have changed. The information about what you are up to is all over the internet. And the vast majority of Catholics are smart enough to simply divert their donations to the authentic Church, once they get the lowdown on what you and your minions are up to. Tomorrow, I will outline our "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" list of seminaries, charities and apostolates that teach the authentic Faith and which can be trusted with our money. Did you really think we would let you destroy the Faith of our families, our treasure for 100 generations since Christ walked the earth? Think again, your excellencies. Articles: "Everybody Knew," Michael Voris "High-Ranking US Cardinal Accused of Sex Abuse," Christine Niles "How did Cardinal McCarrick’s secret last so long?" Phil Lawler "Cardinal McCarrick: Everybody Knew," Rod Dreher "Church: Cardinal McCarrick Is A Molester," Rod Dreher "DC's Cardinal McCarrick Removed From Ministry After 'Credible' Sexual Abuse Allegations," Michael Sisak Beverly Stevens is founder and editor-in-chief of Regina Magazine. Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.
I mean no disrespect to the author of this article, but he is being far too charitable...or naive. The truth is this did not go undetected for many years. It has been known for a very long time. Not only by the clergy, but by many who had dealings with the Church. It was one of the worst kept secrets ever. In fact calling it a secret is even misleading. It is more like everybody knew but, they were just turning their heads the other way. That to me is criminal because it allows the abuse to go on.
Would this have anything to do with Bella Dodd and all those bright communists brought into the priesthood. We must Adore Jesus and make reparations for this— all so sad and hope for Jesus to come and clean up this mess.
Brian, I had just read that article and was about to post a link to it. Reading the comments beneath the article is more frightening that the article itself, especially in regard to Seattle and California. Just as worrying are the calls for all the laity to be consulted which probably would have been a viable solution 30 or 40 years ago before the modernist clergy and teachers in Catholic schools had spread their errors. Turning the Church into a democracy would make their dreams come true. Why should the hierarchy need to consult anyone to know that homosexuality and the priesthood are not a good fit? How many polls do they need to conduct before the penny drops that the apostasy began in the clergy and that a handful of good clergy is preferable to multitudes of heterodox or apostate priests and bishops? We are assured over and over again that the problem is a small minority of clergy. If it's a small minority, why are the majority silent? Do the very stones need to cry out before we see a real clean out? It's good to see some of the more "respectable" Catholic news sources speaking out but it's ironic how so many of the "loyal to the Magisterium" lament the scandals while looking down their noses at the likes of Church Militant when the truth is that Voris had led the way in calling out the problem Bishops. One person commented that Cardinal Farrell (Vatican Dicastry for Laity, Family and Life) is the person controlling next month's World Meeting of Families in Dublin and that it was he who pushed for Fr. James Martin to be included as a speaker. Reading on through the comments, someone said that Cardinal Farrell and Cardinal McCarrick had been roommates in Washington. I took that with a grain of salt until I read this piece in the National Catholic Register which confirms that the pair did, in fact, share an apartment in Washington. It appears that Cardinal McCarrick was something of a mentor to Cardinal Farrell, as he was to the recently promoted Cardinal Tobin (the gay Mass Cardinal). Looks like Cardinal O'Malley also has some questions to answer about a letter which he claims he didn't receive. Although quite long, the NCR piece throws some more light on the lavender network: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/mccarrick-the-bishops-and-unanswered-questions One comment I read and which appears to have since been deleted was in the form of a threat. The commenter was attacking others for being anti-Pope Francis and his reforms. According to him/her, "conservative Bishops" also have skeletons in their closets and "we will expose them" if people don't lay off Pope Francis. That's the kind of threat which hints of blackmail. A reason why the "majority" are silent, perhaps? I've since re-read the comments section and the post wasn't deleted. The comment: "So you can tell from the comments some are trying to use this real scandal to get at their real enemy Pope Francis. News from an insider. Your "favorite" cardinals have skeletons in their closet and we won't hesitate to bring them out if need be". Lest anyone has forgotten the infamous "Catholic Spring" episode, here's a reminder: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...g-groups-undermine-the-catholic-bishops-34330 Note how the guy from Catholics United quoted Cardinal Farrell when justifying their attacks on Archbishop Chaput for interpreting Amoris Laetitia in line with what the Church has always taught on sexual morality. Note also the financial resources available to the Catholic lavender mafia. The name Gill rings a bell with me. He may have been the main financial backer behind the push for legalising gay marriage in Ireland.
