Wow, this is a pretty big deal IMO. To see in print the things that have been long whispered coming from a priest making very direct statements as to those involved... This isn't going to buff out or be papered over easily. It isn't going away. God bless this priest. God bless all these priests who are fighting the good fight for the Church.
Take away the clothing and we would be watching an orgy in that video. There is nothing right about it.
Deacon asks pope's representative to intervene in Buffalo Diocese By Jay Tokasz | Published Thu, Oct 18, 2018 A local deacon has asked Pope Francis’ representative in the U.S. to intervene in the clergy sex abuse crisis in the Buffalo Diocese. Paul L. Snyder III, a deacon at St. Mary Church in Swormville who in August called on Bishop Richard J. Malone to resign, recently wrote to U.S. Papal Nuncio Archbishop Christophe Pierre stating that Malone’s handling of the crisis “scandalized the Diocese of Buffalo and had a severely detrimental impact on the faithful people of Western New York.” Snyder sent a package of materials to Pierre, including his Aug. 23 letter urging Malone to step down as Buffalo bishop; copies of 39 stories, columns and editorials on the sex abuse scandal that have appeared in The Buffalo News since June; a thumb drive with stories about the crisis that aired on WKBW and CNN; and copies of dozens of letters and emails from Western New York Catholics. Pierre did not respond to a voicemail and an email requesting comment on Snyder’s letter and package, which was sent by FedEx on Monday. Snyder’s cover letter said the exhibits in the package show that Malone often ignored victims of abuse, allowed abusive priests to remain in ministry and directed an active cover up of abuses. Snyder also said the scandal caused “undue hardship to innocent clergy.” “In light of these extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, I ask you in your position as the Holy Father’s representative to the United States, to address this urgent crisis as soon as possible,” Snyder wrote. PRIESTS ACCUSED OF ABUSE SIX BUFFALO BISHOPS LET PRIEST ACCUSED OF ABUSE IN 1980S REMAIN IN PARISHES Deacon Paul Snyder III calls for Malone to resign Bishop Malone apologizes to abuse victims, again says he won't resign AG launches statewide clergy abuse probe, subpoenas Catholic dioceses Man who sued over priest sex abuse 24 years ago still seeking justice Retired Buffalo-area priest admits sexually abusing 'dozens' of boys Snyder said in an interview that he would expect the nuncio to report back to Pope Francis about the crisis in the Buffalo Diocese. Snyder also sent a cover letter and package to, among others: Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York City, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston, and Cardinal Daniel N. Dinardo of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston who serves as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “I copied the other bishops because they’re all meeting in November and they’re talking about the abuse scandal,” Snyder said in an interview. “It’s not just one person who has influence. It’s a number of people.” The annual fall assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is scheduled for Nov. 12-15 in Baltimore. Bishops in the United States wield tremendous power in their individual dioceses, but they do not have oversight over other bishops. Nonetheless, in his cover letter to DiNardo and other leaders of the USCCB, Snyder encouraged the bishops to meet with Malone and ask him to resign “as a matter of fraternal correction.” Malone, 72, has rejected multiple calls to step down, saying he would not do so until after his 75th birthday, when he is required to submit his resignation to the pope. The bishop has apologized publicly for not acting sooner to remove one priest accused of sexual misconduct with a young man and another priest accused of inappropriate behavior with a child and sexual abuse of young men. Buffalo Diocese Bishop Richard J. Malone (Robert Kirkham/Buffalo News) Snyder’s mailings followed media accounts last week that O’Malley was forwarding to Pierre a series of television reports about the Buffalo Diocese that had been sent to him by WKBW-TV. The television station in August reported on leaked internal church documents that showed Malone had kept two Buffalo priests in ministry despite allegations against them. The station then submitted the reports to O’Malley, who heads the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, a committee appointed by Pope Francis to recommend best practices for preventing sexual abuse and handling claims of abuse. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston told WKBW in an email that O’Malley was “deeply concerned by the absence of recognition of the abuse experienced by the survivors and the responses or absence of response provided to survivors.” The Boston Archdiocese spokesman, Terrence C. Donilon, referred a reporter from The News to a statement the archdiocese released in September, which said that O'Malley will personally review all letters that come to his office and are related to abuse or to his work on the commission. The statement also said he would refer "those requiring attention" to the nuncio. "It is important to understand what the Commission’s role is in regard to the issue of sexual abuse. It is not a body that has the authority to review and adjudicate individual cases. There are other bodies in the Vatican, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congregation for Bishops, that review, investigate and adjudicate cases involving sexual abuse," the statement reads. "We recognize that this can be frustrating to many because of the seriousness of these matters. But the Church has established lines of authority that, while at times are bureaucratic and difficult to navigate, are currently in place. This is one of the reasons the Commission proposed a panel to investigate and address the behavior and decisions of bishops who fail to act appropriately." https://buffalonews.com/2018/10/18/popes-representative-asked-to-intervene-in-buffalo-diocese/
Don_D¡Viva Cristo Rey! New ↑ Priest breaks ranks and blows the whistle on gay subculture in leading UK seminary Lisa Bourne NEW OSCOTT, England, October 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) — A priest from Oscott College in England has spoken out on the gay subculture in a leading seminary there, making serious charges against the rector and stating that the bishops of England and Wales are lax on homosexuality. In an open letter to the bishops of England, Scotland and Wales, Father David Marsden, S.C.J., former formation tutor at St. Mary’s Seminary at Oscott College, said he was terminated from his position for trying to uphold the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and appeals to the bishops to clean up England’s seminaries for the sake of the faithful men trying to pursue a vocation to the priesthood. “I am writing to you all with a petition to act and take the necessary steps to reform the three remaining seminaries in England,” Marsden said. “The orthodox and heterosexual seminarians deserve a seminary free from a gay subculture and free from academic and formation staff who are homosexual themselves.” St. Mary’s, Oscott in New Oscott, Birmingham, commonly known as Oscott College, is the Roman Catholic seminary of the Archdiocese of Birmingham in England, and one of the Church’s three seminaries in England and Wales. Marsden cast his plea against the overall sexual abuse crisis that has rocked the Church over the last several months, specifically calling out the cover-up and enabling, and he said there is still an absence of accountability for bishops. “This approach is clearly ignoring the Church's teaching on this vital issue, yet for some strange reason, bishops are still not being made accountable for disregarding this important instruction,” he said. “Whilst the teaching is clear, the practice in so many dioceses is deeply compromised. Can I make a huge plea that something be done about this widespread abuse?” Marsden said he prays the Holy Spirit is now purifying the Church’s hierarchy with the ongoing exposure the evil acts committed by homosexual clergy around the world. And he believes it’s his duty to inform the bishops and other Catholics that “the homosexual collective within the hierarchy which enabled McCarrick to function in an unobstructed manner is still alive and well today in the Catholic Church in England and Wales.” Marsden condensed his observations after a year at the seminary into five points in his open letter to the bishops, covered in a Church Militant report. First, some seminarians are sent to St. Luke’s Center in Manchester for psychological assessment as part of the selection policy. The facilities director, Marsden said, “has some very strange views on homosexuality himself and seems happy to admit homosexual men into the formation program.” St. Luke’s Center is the U.K branch of Saint Luke Institute, prominent mental health treatment facility based in Maryland specializing in Catholic clergy, particularly those afflicted by sex abuse tendencies. It was founded by an openly gay man who became a priest and later died of AIDS. The Institute is controversial for, among other things, charges of using homosexual and pedophilia-affirming theories and treatment techniques involving pornography. Marsden’s second point delves into the allegations against the seminary rector, Canon David Oakley, whom Marsden said fired him for recommending that an openly gay seminarian discontinue the program of formation. “Canon David Oakley is prepared to admit homosexual men into his seminary and will not dismiss them unless their public conduct becomes unsavory,” he stated. “He is a compromised and cowardly man who is not prepared to make a stand and disagree with the bishops on the issue of homosexuality.” Marsden continued, saying some among the English and Welsh bishops are “happy to admit seminarians who are openly gay into the formation program and proceed towards ordination,” and he cites the bishop of Menevia. The Vatican has definitively declared more than once a prohibition on ordaining homosexual men. In Marsden’s fourth example, he reported that a spiritual director for the Oscott Seminary has admitted sexual attraction to young men, further implicating Oakley in letting this pass. “It is highly inappropriate that such an individual hold such a post,” Marsden said of the first spiritual director. “The rector is aware of this fact but seems unable to confront this individual,” Marsden stated. “He even noted that the friends who accompany this individual for holidays each year are also homosexual.” “Apparently, the policy in Oscott appears to be if a candidate is not ‘acting out’ his homosexual tendencies at the moment or behaving in an inappropriately ‘camp’ way,” Marsden said, “then he is free to follow the formation program and move towards holy orders. “ “The rector will not dismiss a candidate from the seminary who admits to being ‘gay’ out of fear that his bishop will not agree with his decision,” he added. “The problem, therefore, quietly continues.” Marsden continued, “Another of the spiritual directors in the seminary thinks that homosexual priests are a great idea as they can minister to the gay Catholic community.” In Marsden’s final point, he stated specifically that the archbishops of both Birmingham (Bernard Longley) and Westminster (Vincent Nichols) have been made aware of these issues and “seem to prefer to ignore them.” “Why do we continue to have such passive and feeble-hearted clerics in such high places of leadership in the Church?” he asked. “Why are they afraid to speak out on topics such as homosexuality in the clergy and the toxic gender ideology sweeping through our schools?” In light of the testimony report from Archbishop Viganò, Marsden said, it is all the more apparent that “the homosexual cabal operating in the Catholic Church exists at the very highest level and even incriminates Pope Francis himself.” The dissent from Catholic teaching on sexuality persists, Marsden stated, and it’s killing the priesthood. “In light of the McCarrick scandal and the Viganò report,” he says, it has become very clear that cardinals, bishops and senior clergy from around the world are still openly dissenting against the Church's teaching that prohibits the entrance into seminary formation of men with a homosexual orientation.” “This is the root cause of the most pressing scandal of our times,” Marsden said. “In fact, it is destroying the priesthood from within.” Wow, this is a pretty big deal IMO. To see in print the things that have been long whispered coming from a priest making very direct statements as to those involved... This isn't going to buff out or be papered over easily. It isn't going away. God bless this priest. God bless all these priests who are fighting the good fight for the Church." This calls to mind the first part of a video I saw of Fr Robert Altier elsewhere on this forum. Our Lady today IS purifying the Church!!
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-of-mccarricks-wrongdoing/?platform=hootsuite Viganò tells Ouellet: Yes, the Vatican had detailed proof of McCarrick’s wrongdoing by Dan Hitchens posted Friday, 19 Oct 2018 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2014 (CNS) Archbishop Viganò says the Vatican had documentary evidence, but that officials either failed to act or were prevented from doing so In a third letter on the Archbishop McCarrick affair, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has named key documents which, he says, show that Vatican officials had detailed knowledge of McCarrick’s sexual corruption. It is two months since Archbishop Viganò, the former Vatican representative (nuncio) to the US, accused Vatican officials of failing to act against McCarrick. Viganò even alleged that Pope Francis had known about McCarrick’s offences and nevertheless brought the American prelate into his inner circle. Viganò claimed that he had told Francis in June 2013 that McCarrick had “corrupted generations of seminarians”. He further claimed that, while Benedict XVI had imposed restrictions on McCarrick, these had been lifted by Pope Francis, who made McCarrick a “trusted counsellor”. The Pope has not directly responded. But Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, denounced Viganò’s letter two weeks ago, calling it “unjust” and “abhorrent”. Addressing Viganò as “Dear brother”, Cardinal Ouellet said that, until recently, the Vatican had not been fully aware of McCarrick’s true character. “Unlike today,” Ouellet wrote, “there was not sufficient proof of [McCarrick’s] alleged culpability”. Rather than having “recent and definitive information”, according to Ouellet, the Vatican knew only “rumours” . But in his new letter, Viganò claims that “the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof”, but officials failed to act or were prevented from doing so. He names several documents which, he claims, the Vatican had in its possession, most of them from the time of Benedict XVI. These include a letter from an American priest, Fr Boniface Ramsey, describing what he had heard about McCarrick; records of civil settlements which two US dioceses had reached with McCarrick’s alleged victims; and a 2008 letter from the psychotherapist Richard Sipe offering to detail McCarrick’s offences. Viganò also says that he, as well as his two predecessors as nuncio, Archbishops Montalvo and Sambi, had informed the Vatican about McCarrick. The documents, Viganò says, are kept in the “appropriate archives” of the Vatican. They “specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts”. Addressing Ouellet, the former nuncio asks: “Are all these just rumours? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy.” Viganò also says Ouellet’s letter confirmed that Benedict imposed restrictions on McCarrick. “Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims,” he writes. The archbishop concludes by appealing to other Vatican officials to give their own testimony. The full text of Archbishop Viganò’s letter is here.
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/10/19/vigano-risponde-al-card-ouellet-la-terza-testimonianza/ On the Memory of the North American Martyrs To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so. But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell. A judge, even in his infinite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved. Anticipating the dreadful question from that judge — “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” — what answer could I give? I testified fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed. I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives. Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty. Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own. Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier. If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that. This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience. I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened. Therefore I spoke. For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church — harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large. With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope. Let me restate the key points of my testimony. • In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests. • In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with yet another priest. • In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal. This memo received no response. • In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick’s sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Affairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response. • In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope’s orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature. • In November 2011 Cardinal Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope’s restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face. • On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an official assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy. • On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarification, and the Pope asked me, “il cardinale McCarrick, com’è (Cardinal McCarrick — what do you make of him)?”– which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confine himself to a life of prayer and penance. • Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him. • McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who exploiting their favor with Pope Francis manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large. • Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it. I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confirms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole. Cont..
• Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick’s situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio. • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict. • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances. • Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, first through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance. What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute? • Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent figure of the Church in the US, telling the pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that. • Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony. My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents – irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation. And I confirm this again. • Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the files of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of “audience memos” imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card. Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, or signed by the Secretary of State or by the Substitute. • Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically “sanctions” but provisions, “conditions and restrictions.” To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing. In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made. There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of “rumors,” which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick. I affirm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so. Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors? They are official correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy. The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass. These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts. They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them. In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation. As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy condemn the abusre, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it. Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds — whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming. It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, anw instrument, is in fact the main motive. Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church. I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy. I am urging no such thing. I pray every day for Pope Francis — more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his office as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confirm his brothers (Lk 22:32). In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt. You too are faced with a choice. You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption. You can make excuses, compromises and justification that put off the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on. On the other hand, you can choose to speak. You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.” I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking. I urge you to consider which choice– on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge — you will not regret having made. October 19, 2018 Memory of the North American Martyrs + Carlo Maria Viganò Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio
May God bless and protect the courageous Archbishop Vigano. I pray that more men will be emboldened and come forward with the supporting documents that he has requested.
Well, now the FED's are officially involved at least here in the US. https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2...ex-abuse-inside-pennsylvania-catholic-church/ Justice Department Opens Investigation Into Clergy Sex Abuse Inside Pennsylvania Catholic Church October 18, 2018 at 10:50 pm Filed Under:Catholic Church, Local, Local TV Follow CBSPHILLY Facebook | Twitter PHILADELPHIA (CBS/AP) — The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation of child sexual abuse inside the Roman Catholic Church in Pennsylvania, using subpoenas to demand confidential files and testimony from church leaders, according to two people familiar with the probe. Now federal prosecutors are bringing the Justice Department’s considerable resources to bear, according to two people who were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Philadelphia Police Arrest Suspect Accused Of Trying To Set Cop Car On Fire “It’s groundbreaking if we’re going to see one of the U.S. attorneys pursuing the Catholic cases,” said Marci Hamilton, a University of Pennsylvania professor and chief executive of Child USA, a nonprofit think tank focused on preventing child abuse. “The federal government has so far been utterly silent on the Catholic cases.” At least seven the state’s eight Roman Catholic dioceses — Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton, Erie, Greensburg, Allentown and Harrisburg — acknowledged receiving subpoenas and said they would cooperate or were working with Justice Department officials. “I was abused by two Catholic priests between the ages of 11 and 13,” said Mike McDonnell. McDonnell, 50, has had a difficult life and he says it stems from his alleged abuse in the Catholic church when he was just a kid at St. Titus Parish in Norristown. “It happened in the sacristy. It happened in the rectory. The most severe cases. Both of them had owned private homes. One in New Jersey. The other in the Pocono Mountains,” McDonnell said. “The Diocese will cooperate fully with the request, just as it cooperated fully with the information requests related to the statewide Grand Jury,” the diocese said in a statement to CBS3. “The Diocese sees itself as a partner with law enforcement in its goal to eliminate the abuse of minors wherever it may occur in society.” “This subpoena is no surprise considering the horrific misconduct detailed in the statewide grand jury report,” the Greensburg Diocese said in a statement. “Survivors, parishioners and the public want to see proof that every diocese has taken sweeping, decisive and impactful action to make children safer. We see this as another opportunity for the Diocese of Greensburg to be transparent.” There was no indication the Justice Department is planning a more ambitious and expensive investigation of clergy abuse nationwide. U.S. Attorney William McSwain of Philadelphia, who issued the subpoenas, wants to know if priests, bishops, seminarians or others committed any federal crimes. McSwain, appointed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, asked for certain church leaders to testify before a federal grand jury in Philadelphia, though it could be months before that happens because of the time it takes to review the requested documents. McSwain also demanded bishops turn over any evidence that anyone in their ranks took children across state lines for illicit purposes; sent sexual images or messages via phone or computer; instructed anyone not to contact police; reassigned suspected predators; or used money or other assets as part of the scandal. The subpoenas seek documents stored in “Secret Archives,” ”Historical Archives” or “Confidential Files,” and records related to the dioceses’ organizational charts, finances, insurance coverage, clergy assignments and treatment of priests, according to the people who spoke to the AP. Drug-Resistant Salmonella From Chicken Sickens Nearly 100 In 29 States, Including Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey A representative for McSwain declined to comment, as did a Justice Department spokeswoman. “I’m thrilled at hearing this information. We have the full weight and attention of the United States federal government investigating the Roman Catholic Church,” said Shaun Dougherty, 48, of Johnstown, who told authorities he was molested by a priest as a boy in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese. Two Eastern Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania — the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia and the Byzantine Archeparchy of Pittsburgh — also acknowledged they are under investigation. While the subpoenas hint as possible charges of sexual exploitation of minors and fraud, legal experts said that if federal prosecutors can show that church leaders systematically covered up for child-molesting priests in the past five years, dioceses could also be charged under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the law originally passed to bring down the Mafia. The nearly 900-page Pennsylvania grand jury report found that church leaders had engaged in a systematic cover-up by shuffling accused priests around to different parishes and in some cases working to prevent police investigations. Because of the statute of limitations, however, only two priests were charged as a result of the investigation. Many other priests are dead. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who oversaw the state probe, declined to comment on the federal investigation. In the wake of the report’s release, Shapiro said at least a dozen states opened investigations of their own and more than 1,300 accusers contacted his office on a victims’ hot line. The report also led to the resignation last week of Cardinal Donald Wuerl as archbishop of Washington. He was accused of helping to protect some child-molesting priests when he was bishop of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006. This week, the report triggered a showdown in the state Legislature, where Shapiro pushed to give child-abuse victims a two-year window to sue the church in cases otherwise too old to pursue. Church leaders opposed the change, warning it would cripple their ability to fund Catholic charities and enrich lawyers. A measure at the state level in Harrisburg that would have nixed the statute of limitations for clergy abuse survivors stalled. Marci Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a child advocate who has worked with numerous clergy abuse victims over the years, says the statute of limitations on a federal level does not exist and has not since 2002. If someone was abused after 2002, victims can come forward whenever they want. “It is a big deal that for 16 years there has been no statute of limitations,” said Hamilton. “This could cover a wide variety of crimes and a wide variety of dioceses. I’m not surprised at the scope of the subpoenas.” The difficulty of making charges stick against higher-ups in the church was illustrated when the Philadelphia district attorney’s office brought a landmark cover-up case in 2011 against Monsignor William Lynn, a longtime aide to two Philadelphia cardinals. Lynn, first U.S. church official ever prosecuted for the alleged cover-up of child molestation by priests, was arrested on child-endangerment charges. At trial, he said he had merely followed orders from above. A jury convicted him in 2012. He spent three years in and out of prison as his conviction was twice overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He is awaiting a third trial. (© Copyright 2018 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
The above words of Archbishop Vigano. May I follow his advice and not wait until my own deathbed Judgment to deal with the persistent sins in my own life! Safe in the Father's Arms!
Don, This is groundbreaking and I couldn't help but notice the date when this news broke. I can't help but wonder if it is related to St. John Bosco's prophecies but I won't get into the details here it's too involved and there are other threads in which this has been discussed like here #51 . This news was briefly discussed on World Over last night amongst other things like the Youth Synod,
Here is another example of the Brave New Church they are building. Rock concerts inside the Cathedral: https://www.gloria.tv/article/FfyHexMsGCc62PKPmbeVtoz2H
Sorry I just realized SG already posted this. It's so bad though maybe it deserves a double post! The men in charge of the Church have lost all sense of the sacred.
They may have but in only 3 years, the FSSP TLM parish I attend has gone from the initial 65 members to on average 300-350 attending Mass each Sunday. It's a small parish but it is growing by leaps and bounds. I wonder, can they say the same?
No, the Novus Ordo by and large is dying and the TLM is experiencing a huge revival at the moment. The hippie leftovers who instituted the change are now the ones who have aged into the hierarchy of the Church and they are either blind to what is happening or simply don't care and are seeking the elimination of 2000 years of Tradition just because they personally do not like it.
Yes! A Latin Mass that I attended near me a while back was *packed*. Lots of young families, children, many teenagers and young people in their twenties. I was maybe expecting a dozen or so people over eighty, but the church was packed, mostly with the young and middle aged.
Dear Goodness, am I loosing it or are they all loosing it? A Rainbow Cross? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a...pe-francis-wears-rainbow-cross-during-youth-s Another Vatican PR disaster? Pope Francis wears ‘rainbow’ cross during Youth Synod VATICAN CITY, Italy, October 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Pope Francis' Vatican invited another public relations debacle Wednesday when photos came out in Vatican News of the Pope wearing what many thought to be a "Pride" cross decorated in the colors of the rainbow. The rainbow cross promptly garnered reaction on social media as a nudge-and-a-wink endorsement of the LGBT movement. There exists an explanation for a non-LGBT origin of the rainbow cross, and its colors don’t precisely resemble those of the gay “pride” rainbows used by the LGBT movement. Young people from Panama and some Latin American Synod fathers presented the multi-colored cross for World Youth Day 2019 to Francis, according to a tweet in Italian from the Holy See’s Vatican News service. Other bishops in the photos with Francis are wearing the rainbow cross as well. “The Holy Father greeted them with joy and blessed them,” the tweet stated.
It's not a Homosexual symbol, but it's still crazy bad public relations: What are they thinking? https://aleteia.org/2018/10/19/why-is-pope-francis-wearing-a-rainbow-hued-cross/ The meaning of THIS rainbow cross This cross has nothing to do with the LGBT movement. CELAM (the umbrella group for Latin American Bishops’ Conferences) developed this cross, and the organizers of WYD 2019 in Panama gave it to Pope Francis. The CELAM site explains the cross: The Cross of the Latin American Youth Ministry carries with it the colors that represent the symbol of YM, Therefore, each color represents a region within our [CELAM’s] ministry: Green: Represents the Region of Mexico and Central America Yellow-orange: Represents the Caribbean Region Red: Represents the Andean Region Blue: Represents the Southern Cone Region Likewise, the shape of the Cross echoes the orientation of our continent. [i.e. Central and South America] The colors represent the ecosystems that Latin America possesses: we have jungle, volcanoes, beaches and sea. The cross was based on the logo for youth ministry across Latin America. Here is that logo, which displays the regions more clearly than the cross.
Very few young people attend Mass in Ireland apart from some children brought by their parents. So the 18-45 category largely missing. I think if the TLM had been maintained it would largely have been the same decay but it may have held a few more because of the beauty of the Liturgy. We live in a unique time when faith is under assault and I am reminded of Jesus' words 'when I return will I find faith on earth'?
