https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/11/14/how-long-lord/ How Long, Lord? Robert Royal WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2018 I’ve been on the road and much occupied the past two days; my first glance at the news about the Vatican’s request that our American bishops not vote on steps to resolve the abuse crisis came as I was boarding a plane. It’s been almost twenty-four hours since then, as I’m writing – and trying, on the move, to catch up with this odd development. Second thoughts may follow, but for now, I find it hard to believe that it’s not just a bad dream. The Vatican knew for months that the bishops would deal with abuse at their regular Fall gathering. The pope asked them to cancel it and hold a spiritual retreat instead until the heads of bishops’ conferences from around the world meet in February. It’s hard to say with any degree of precision what Pope Francis fears might happen at such a gathering. We’re hearing vague claims that decisions by the American bishops might conflict with canon law. But when has this papacy ever been held up by law – or wanted bishops everywhere in the world to follow universal rules – when it really wanted to get something done? Whatever the fear, to wait until the very day the meeting opened to request no voting take place is almost without precedent. For many Americans, sad to say, the pope has probably just confirmed what he was forced to admit in Chile: he’s part of the problem. That no one convinced him this move would be a public relations nightmare – and would cause more trouble than a frank discussion and voting (which he could alway massage later anyway) – is a sign of where we are in the Church now. I hope to get to Baltimore later today and take the temperature in person. But the news reports I’ve seen say Cardinal Cupich stood up while Cardinal DiNardo, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, was expressing disappointment to say, “It is clear that the Holy See is taking the abuse crisis seriously.” Really? If it were that clear, it wouldn’t be necessary to say so. Or to explain, as Cupich went on to do in remarks that had obviously been prepared ahead of time, why the assembled bishops should accept something clearly unacceptable, as it seems many of them immediately realized. His recommendation, which was clearly a signal from the pope himself, was to hold yet another meeting in March, after the meeting of presidents of bishops’ conferences in February. Survivors of abuse and organizations advocating for them were already not expecting much from this November meeting, which itself comes several months after the new revelations. In Washington politics, this would be called kicking the can down the road, hoping it will become someone else’s problem – or get replaced with something in a couple of news cycles. If “the Vatican” were “taking the abuse crisis seriously,” we would have tangible evidence by now. Some of Pope Francis’ defenders have pointed out that he is the only pope in modern times to have forced a cardinal (McCarrick) to resign. True, but only after the Archdiocese of New York determined that he had committed a crime in molesting an underage boy. [Photo: Max Rossi/Reuters] Under current policies in the American Church, that crime could not be concealed and had to be reported to civil authorities. Which essentially forced Rome’s hand. And McCarrick is, half a year later, still, inexplicably, a priest. The other evidence we have about how serious Rome is about the abuse crisis runs in a very different direction. Last December, the Vatican simply allowed the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors to lapse. In one way, no great loss because – despite all the praise when it was created – the Commission did little. Several members had quit along the way in protest over inaction. But to just let it lapse? It was reconstituted, months later, but no one has heard or seen anything from that body suggesting that it will play any role in resolving what is now a global crisis. People in the English-speaking world will find this hard to believe, but much of the the media in Italy and parts of Europe follow the pope in lacking a sense of urgency about abuse. They seem unaware – or unwilling to see – that there is a crisis at all, other than a pattern of sinful behavior on the part of a number of priests and bishops. If you talk with people in and around the Vatican, they tend to think America an aberration (conveniently forgetting similar trouble in Chile, Honduras, Ireland, Australia, Germany, Italy itself, the Vatican itself, and other countries). They say that our bishops have let this thing get blown out of proportion by mishandling it. At one point Cardinal Maradiaga, the pope’s right-hand man in the Council of Cardinals (himself mixed up in sexual and financial scandals in Honduras) attributed the 2002 revelations in America to Jewish and Masonic influences in the American press that, he claimed, are seeking to destroy the Church. He apologized later – but that’s clearly what he, and no doubt others at the very highest levels of the Vatican, really think. You can talk yourself blue in the face trying to explain to them the widespread, justified anger among the laity, and large numbers of priests and bishops as well. So far, the way Rome has been dealing with that news – as it has dealt with Archbishop Viganò’s claims – is not to deal with it at all. That leads people – even many faithful Catholics – to suspect – rightly or not – that there’s something fishy here that some very powerful people are trying to keep from coming to light. You can try to blame this all on the slowness of Vatican bureaucracy, resentments among members the hierarchy, dislike of the pope, the influence of Satan himself. But the simple fact is that people don’t want more talk, meetings, commissions. They want action. And truth. Instead, what they see is that, even when our American bishops want to take some tentative first steps to deal with a difficult and urgent problem involving not only the protection of innocents but the moral credibility of the Church, Rome says: No, wait.
Praetorian, He should have received a standing ovation for that speech! Well done Bishop Joseph Strickland, thank you!!! Thank you for posting this, the CNA article that I posted contained a few quotes from what the bishop stated here. PS - Here is some more information about Bishop Strickland, https://faithfulshepherds.com/bishop/joseph-e-strickland/ . Edited to add this article about Bishop Strickland: Tyler bishop: Our main job is to focus on salvation of souls By Christine Rousselle | https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...n-job-is-to-focus-on-salvation-of-souls-89164 Baltimore, Md., Nov 13, 2018 / 10:35 am (CNA).- About three months after calling for an investigation into the claims made by former Apostolic Nuncio Carlo Vigano, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas is not confident that the Vatican will ever properly investigate allegations outlined in the nuncio’s August letter. In an interview with CNA on Monday at the USCCB’s Fall General Assembly in Baltimore, Md., Strickland also expressed concerns that bishops of late have strayed from their “basic mission” as the shepherd of souls. Vigano, former nuncio to the U.S., released a testimony in August which claimed that Pope Francis had removed restrictions on Archbishop Theodore McCarrick that had been imposed by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. McCarrick resigned from the College of Cardinals in July of this year, following a series of public allegations against him concerning the sexual abuse of minors, seminarians, and priests. The dioceses of Newark and Metuchen subsequently confirmed they had previously reached two out-of-court-settlements with adult accusers. Regarding the Vatican’s pledge to investigate Vigano’s various claims, Strickland told CNA he is concerned that the investigation is going far too slowly. “I've worked in the tribunal for years, I've studied canon law,” he said. “We used to always say working in the tribunal, 'justice delayed is justice denied,' so that's my thought. It's just taking too long.” Strickland told CNA that he is not entirely sure what was causing this delay, but he did acknowledge that Americans are generally accustomed to investigations happening quickly, while Europeans often have a more relaxed mindset. When asked if he believed anything could be done to get Rome to speed up the investigation, Strickland was skeptical. He told CNA that while he accepts that it is up to Rome to deal with Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, he believes that the Church in the United States should do its own investigation into his alleged crimes and learn from what they uncover. “There’s got to be files. He’s an American. I mean, his whole priesthood has been in the United States,” said Strickland. “I would say, let’s help Rome, and have our own investigation, and do what we can. Certainly, we can.” The delay in the investigation into McCarrick is a sign of deeper issues within the Church, Strickland said. He told CNA that he was “disappointed” thus far with how things have been handled. He described the lack of a proper investigation as an “illustration that the same machinery that caused the whole McCarrick mess, still functions--or doesn't.” “It's that same kind of machine that allowed him to move through the ranks doing all this stuff and just sort of side-tracking the moral issues,” he said. He blamed this “machine” for slowing down the investigation into uncovering what exactly McCarrick did. The Vigano letter, he said, has “sort of pulled the curtain back” on deeper issues within the Church--namely, moral decay amongst the clergy and the Church as a whole. Strickland said he believes the issues regarding McCarrick, Vigano, and the lack of any real investigation into either can be traced to what he describes as a drifting away from the main job of a bishop: a need to promote the salvation of souls. “We need to worry about the salvation of Theodore McCarrick's soul, as bishops,” he said. “We need to be focused on the salvation of the victims and the abusers. That, to me, is the core issue.” Strickland pointed to the events of the past summer, primarily the reaction to what he called the “Vigano question,” as proof that this primary concern has fallen out of focus among some of his brother bishops. “All of what's happened this summer. It's ‘Oh, well, we've got to worry about global warming.’ That's not our job,” he said, in an apparent reference to comments made by Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago. In August, Cupich dismissed the nuncio’s allegations as a “rabbit hole”, saying Pope Francis has a “bigger agenda” to worry about, including defending migrants and protecting the environment. Strickland said that there is certainly a need for “good people, good laity,” working on various issues such as global warming, immigration, and general injustices in the world, noting that he’s on the board of a Catholic charity. But he expressed concern that an overemphasis on these kinds of works is serving as a distraction from the ultimate call of a bishop: bringing people to holiness, promoting the sanctity of life, and “living the virtues.” “I think we’ve got it flipped,” he said. “As bishops, our first job is the holiness of the people of God. The salvation of souls.” In every situation he encounters as a bishop, Strickland said, he tries to consider how his actions may affect the salvation of souls. Looking ahead to the future of the Church, Bishop Strickland said he believes there needs to be increased accountability among bishops, improvements in teaching the various facets of the faith - especially in terms of sexuality - continued state investigations into abuse, and reforms to ensure that seminarians will be protected throughout the formation process. “We need to make sure that seminarians are not victimized,” he said, adding that a man who is called to seminary should not be at risk of “having his life destroyed by the people who are supposed to be forming him for the priesthood.” One area where Strickland expressed confidence was in regards to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. Although he said there are loopholes that need to be tightened, he is “fairly confident” that the appropriate steps to “revamp and strengthen” the charter will be taken. As a bishop, however, there are responsibilities that go along with his roles as a spiritual father and shepherd to a diocese, he told CNA. He cannot “just sit in a corner and go and pray” - during times of controversy and upheaval, he has to prioritize what he does first. “I'm a shepherd. I've got sheep,” he said. “And sheep are bleeding, and getting slaughtered, and wolves are attacking. We can't be worried about what color we're going to paint the barn...Deal with the most important (things) first, then get others to figure out the barn.”
Bishop Strickland was clearly referring to Fr James Martin, the very infamous homosexual priest in his speech. Why did he not name him? Why did he refer to him indirectly? What would have been wrong with using his name? The Bishop mentioned that homosexuality is condemned by the Church. But there was no mention of the fact that we have a problem with homosexual Bishops and priests and that these might be organised. No metnion of the silence of Pope Francis regarding the McCarrick affiar. No mention at all of Wuerl. No mention at all of Vigano. I would say a few ripples were stirred, I would like to have seen a hurrican stirred up. No Elijah of Jeremiah here. Sigh. It was alright I suppose. Compared to the rest of them it might be graded terrific. Compared to the rest of them that it. A grim comparison. Oh I'd love to see someone that said something that made the Bishops rage and want to kill him. Someone who properly stirred the pot. Who wasn't polite or understated. Who totally , totally called these perverts out for what they are. I'll tell you how I'll know a good Bishop has spoken. Because when he speaks the other Bishops ..and the Pope will get so angry at him they wil ltake him outside and beat him to death.
I forgot to post Church Militant's Vortex video from yesterday and now I see that Father Z. has written an article which discusses one of the topics Michael Voris brought up. Solipsistic, self-aggrandizing @FatherRosica dares to vet Catholic news sources Posted on November 14, 2018 by Catholicism Pure & Simple Posted on 13 November 2018 by Fr. Z on his blog: After the 2018 Synod (“walking together”) proposed that some authority should vet Catholic websites for their acceptability, THIS pops up. Apparently Rosica handed it out himself to members of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher. Voris broke it. Damian ThompsonVerified account@holysmoke FollowingFollowing @holysmoke More Care to explain this, Fr Rosica? And, no, we won’t let you get away with claiming it’s not news because it was spotted by @Michael_Voris Look at that list. It’s hilarious. It is shocking only in its temerity, not in its choices. With a couple of exceptions, I’d say that this is a helpful list of sources to avoid. However, you can see where we are headed. Yet another step toward the Church of the Hoopers. No thanks. ***
Is talking up Archbishop Scicluna supposed to make people ignore the fact that Pope Francis refused the US Bishops' request for an Apostolic Visitation in the wake of the McCarrick scandal? It is supposed to cancel out the fact that Pope Francis reinstated a predator priest who had been laicised by the CDF? Is it supposed to cancel out the fact that Pope Francis called a halt to the American Bishops' attempt to get to the root of the McCarrick affair? Is it supposed to divert attention from the fact that European Bishops' Conferences have recently announced measures which will include lay participation in investigating sexual abuse yet it's only the Americans who have been ordered to hold off until February? Could it be that the Pope doesn't want lay people not handpicked by him and his friends to expose the homosexual influence in seminaries? Could it be that the reasons the Pope stymied the US initiative is that any thorough investigation of McCarrick which includes lay investigators would prevent the Vatican suppressing evidence of the Pope's role in reviving McCarrick's influence, especially in the promotion of clerics in the US? Typical Jesuits turning a nothing burger into a banquet.
He may be a good guy but this would slow down the response and keep control at the top and still be a response to anything being done. Also keeping it from American greater influence.
I'm sorry and someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this bishop ok with married and divorced receiving communion? Just another dissenter?
How awful. Thank God I have a really good prayer life . This is such a swamp. Keeping your Faith is becoming more and more difficult with all this filth coming out.
Though I wish they would do more, they are also in a tough spot. Balancing speaking up a bit with not saying the wrong thing and being ousted from their posts only to be replaced by a Modernist lackey. Not saying they are right or wrong for this, only that it is something they are probably much more aware of than us.
He doesn't look like he's wearing long pants yet. A perpetual adolescent who believes sodomy dignified. A typical narcissist who can't see that the rules also apply to himself. A tyrant who advises not to obey other tyrants. A perfect Bergoglian.
Just like your previous post but being played out in our time. First came the heresies and then came the vipers. Believe! How many are placing their faith not in God but in men, they are idols.
Via Barnhardt's blog; http://edwardpentin.co.uk/monsignor-bux-pope-francis-must-urgently-issue-profession-of-faith/ Monsignor Bux: Pope Francis Must Urgently Issue Profession of Faith The Vatican theologian says unless the Pope reaffirms Church teaching on morals, the faith and the sacraments, ‘the apostasy will deepen and the de facto schism will widen.’ In a forceful interview with Italian Vaticanist Aldo Maria Valli, Msgr. Nicola Bux has warned that the current pontificate is issuing statements that are generating “heresies, schisms, and controversies of various kinds” and that the Holy Father should issue a profession of faith to restore unity in the Church. In the interview, published Oct. 13 but overlooked due to the Youth Synod taking place in Rome last month, the theologian consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints said “heretical statements” on marriage, the moral life and reception of the sacraments are now “at the center of a vast debate which is becoming more and more passionate by the day.” Msgr. Bux said the origin of many of these questioned teachings — highlighted in a September 2017 filial correction and at a Rome conference in April on doctrinal confusion in the Church — is the Pope’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, but they have since become “considerably worse and more complicated.” He said this has led some senior prelates, such as Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, one of the four cardinals to sign the dubia in 2016, to reiterate a call for a “profession of faith on the part of the Pope.” But Msgr. Bux said this would be difficult to achieve given the Pope’s vision of the Church as a federation of ecclesial communities — something Msgr. Bux described as “a bit like the Protestant communities.” Since the two synods on the family, the Italian theologian said “two gears” of faith and morality now exist, seen most clearly over whether to give Holy Communion to some “remarried” divorcees. This has caused “great discomfort” to “many bishops and parish priests” because of an “unstable and confused pastoral situation,” he said. To remedy the situation, Msgr. Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI, still believes some kind of profession of faith is required of the Pope. He referred to a similar profession St. Paul VI made in 1968 that reaffirmed what is Catholic “in the face of the errors and heresies” that came immediately after the Second Vatican Council. “If this doesn’t happen,” he warned, “the apostasy will deepen and the de facto schism will widen.” Who Has Erred? Msgr. Bux feels the situation has become especially urgent after the Pope changed the Catechism in August to declare the death penalty “inadmissible.” The change contradicts the Tridentine and St. Pius X Catechisms, the theologian asserted, the latter of which taught that the legitimacy of capital punishment was in “full conformity with Divine Revelation.” “Either one admits that the Church has taught the legitimacy of something not conforming to the Gospel practically for two thousand years, or one must admit that it was Pope Bergoglio who erred,” Msgr. Bux said, adding: “This is a very sensitive issue, but sooner or later he’s going have to put this right. And not just for the death penalty.” Asked by Valli if this sets a precedent for the Pope to change more of the Catechism if he wishes, the theologian said this is a “very disturbing question,” and that another “legitimate concern” is to keep the deposit of faith from “sensitivities contingent on today’s or tomorrow’s society.” The Pope cannot “impose his own opinion” on the Church, Msgr. Bux stressed, quoting Joseph Ratzinger, because on matters of faith, morals and the sacraments, the Church can “only consent to the will of Christ.” And yet he said “many points” in Amoris Laetitia are “cumbersome and contradictory” as well as contrary to the thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas, despite the exhortation asserting otherwise. He also pointed out that the tendency of this pontificate to be silent in the face of criticism, or refuse to engage the charges of heresy or apostasy, bring to mind St. Pius X’s warning in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis: That never “clearly confessing one’s own heresy” is “typical behaviour of the modernists, because in this way they can hide themselves within the Church.” Valli and Msgr. Bux then went on to discuss the practical, theological and juridical difficulties of correcting a pope of such errors. These include the hurdle that heresy must be “manifest and public,” that the Pope must be fully conscious of having voluntarily questioned a truth of the faith, and that he also has a “kind of immunity from jurisdiction” due to the canonical principle that no one can judge the Apostolic See and “even less” can they “judge their shepherd.” Unreliable Theology A further difficulty today, he said, is “identifying the exact contours of a heresy” because theology “is no longer reliable.” Instead, he said it has become a “sort of arena” where a truth is affirmed, but someone else is always “willing to defend the exact opposite.” “More useful” than a fraternal correction, he said, would be to examine the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation and “whether it is full or partial.” Jesus, he said, did not give the keys of heaven to Peter and Andrew but “said it only to Peter.” Such an “in-depth study” of the resignation, he said, could help to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” “Great change” in the Church is “palpable” under Pope Francis, Msgr. Bux said, along with a “clear intention to mark a line of discontinuity, or break, with previous pontificates.” Such a rupture, he went on to say, is a “revolution” that “generates heresies, schisms, and controversies of various kinds” and “all of them can be traced back to sin.” He referred to 3rd century Church Father Origen of Alexandria who said, “Where there are sins, there are multiplicity, schisms, heresies, dissensions. But where there is virtue, there is singleness and union, on the basis of which all believers are one heart and one soul.” The current crisis has negatively affected the liturgy, he said, but as an encouragement, he quoted St. Athanasius of Alexandria’s address to Christians who suffered under the Aryans: “You remain outside the places of worship, but faith dwells in you. Let’s see: what is more important, the place or the faith? True faith, of course. Who has lost and who has won in this fight, the one keeps the See or observes the faith? It is true, the buildings are good, when the apostolic faith is preached to you; they are holy if everything happens there in a holy way… You are the ones who are happy, you who remain within the Church because of your faith, who keep its foundations strong as they have been passed down to you through the apostolic tradition. And if some execrable jealousy tries to shake it on various occasions, it does not succeed. They are the ones who broke away from it in the current crisis. No one, never, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers, and we believe that God will make us one day return our churches. The more violent they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality they are the ones who are, in turn, expelled from it and go off the road” (Coll. Selecta SS. Eccl. Patrum. Caillu and Guillou, vol. 32, pp 411-412). Valli lastly asked whether heresy is not just about spreading false doctrines but also “silencing the truth about doctrine and morals.” “Of course it is,” responded Msg. Bux. “Where there is no doctrine, there are moral problems — as we are seeing. When the Pope and bishops do this, they use their office to destroy [doctrine].” Quoting St. Augustine, he said “they seek their own interests, not the interests of Jesus Christ; they proclaim his word, but spread their ideas.” The name of Jesus Christ, he said referring to comments by the late Cardinal Giacomo Biffi of Bologna, “has become an excuse to talk about something else: migration, ecology and so on. Thus, we are no longer unanimous in speaking (1 Cor 1:10) and the Church is divided.”
Catholic bishops pray during their fall 2016 meeting. Doug Mainwaring Wed Nov 14, 2018 - 6:21 pm EST | https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u...asking-vatican-to-release-mccarrick-documents US bishops vote against asking Vatican to release McCarrick documents catholic, theodore mccarrick, us bishops, usccb, usccb18, vatican cover-up BALTIMORE, Maryland, November 14, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voted today against asking the Vatican to release its records on former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. In what was eventually an 83 to 137 vote, the USCCB decided against asking the Vatican for its documentation on the disgraced prelate. The move was triggered when the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops at the last minute spiked the U.S. bishops’ plans to pursue acting upon two agenda items intended to deal with the growing crisis precipitated by the cascade of stories of clergy sexual abuse in dioceses across the country. While the proposed communication to the Holy See consisted of a simple, single 40-word sentence, the prelates were far from unanimous in support for the move. The discussion that ensued revealed equal parts fear among the members of the USCCB: fear of anger by laity and priests back in their home dioceses; fear that if they don’t write something they might appear to be passive and uncaring pastors; and fear of offending or being misunderstood by the Holy See. As one bishop had noted earlier in the day, there is sometimes a dynamic tension between two important principles in the Catholic Church: subsidiarity and community. Bishop Boyea of the Diocese of Lansing authored the amendment, which aimed to give concrete wording to the USCCB’s motion on Monday: Be it resolved that the bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops encourage the Holy See to release all the documentation that can be released consistent with the canon and civil law regarding the misconduct of Archbishop McCarrick. There was immediate disagreement among the bishops. Bishop Christensen of Boise proposed adding the word “soon” to the proposal, in order to convey a greater sense of urgency to the Holy See. A vote was taken and the amendment with “soon” added to it was approved 111 to 106. Some bishops seemed to not like the idea of pushing the Vatican at all. Cardinal Blase Cupich suggested the bishops would simply be asking the Holy See to do what it already intended to do and others agreed with him. Cardinal William Levada worried that the communication from the USCCB to the Vatican would not have the desired effect, and joined with Cardinal Joseph Tobin’s suggestion that the bishops simply express support for an October 6 statement from the Holy See. Bishop David Walkowiak suggested the wording was biased. He proposed the bishops change “misconduct against” to “regarding the allegations.” The wording was then revised: Recognizing the ongoing investigation of the Holy See into the case of Archbishop McCarrick, be it resolved that the bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops encourage the Holy See to release all the documentation that can be released consistent with canon and civil law regarding the misconduct of Archbishop McCarrick. As the battle over individual words escalated, so did chuckles from some of the bishops. Bishop Steven Biegler of the Diocese of Cheyenne said that he understood the concerns that people have, but sometimes we have to take unpopular stances. “I find this to be an uninformed proposition,” he concluded. Bishop Michael Fors Olson of the Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas said he found the entire motion to be “subjective and vague.” He suggested that it will serve to make the USCCB “appear like we are doing something when we are not.” Support for the proposal appeared to have waned during the lively discussion. In a second vote, the motion failed 83 to 137. US bishops punt resolution encouraging Holy See to release McCarrick documents On the last day of their fall meeting, the U.S. bishops' conference voted down a resolution that would have “encouraged” the Holy See to release all documents on the allegations of sexual misconduct against Archbishop Theodore McCarrick... Catholic News Agency · November 14, 2018 *** Nov. 13, 2018 | Edward Pentin | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...-vatican-request-that-us-bishops-delay-action Motivation Remains Unclear for Vatican Request that US Bishops Delay Action Cardinal Marc Ouellet told the Register that he wished to offer ‘reassurance that the Congregation [for Bishops] is working for the best evaluation and accompaniment of the American episcopate’s questions.’
I too would have like to have seen a hurrican come from this. Why are so many people afraid to speak of the truth? Why are so afraid of offending feelings we hold back from the truth? Lord, give our clergy courage.
