https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/06/11/order-of-malta-leader-bans-traditional-latin-mass/ Order of Malta leader bans Traditional Latin Mass Staff Reporter 11 June, 2019 Fra' Giacomo Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto, right, during the oath ceremony at Santa Maria in Aventino in Rome (CNS photo/Order of Malta via EPA) The decision applies to 'all the official liturgical celebrations' of the Order The Grand Master of the Order of Malta has banned all liturgical ceremonies in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. A letter from Fra’ Giacomo Dalla Torre was sent to all grand priory and national association presidents saying that “henceforth all the liturgical ceremonies within our Order must be performed according to the ordinary rite of the Church (rite of St. Paul VI) and not the extraordinary rite (Tridentine rite).” “This decision applies to all the official liturgical celebrations such as investitures, masses during our pilgrimages, memorial masses, as well as the feasts and solemnities of the Order,” Dalla Torre continues, adding that superiors should inform their subordinates so that the order is “immediately put into practice.” The use of unusual terminology, such as “rite of St Paul VI”, and the misspelling of “Summorum Pontificum” led to doubts over the letter’s authenticity. A spokesperson initially told the Catholic Herald on Monday evening that the letter was not genuine, but later confirmed that it was in fact real. The letter says that while Summorum Pontificum leaves priests free to decide which form of the Roman Rite to celebrate, it also allows the Major Superior of a religious institute to decide on the use of the Traditional Latin Mass within their community. Fra’ Dalla Torre gives no explanation for the decision. The move will likely increase tensions within the Order, which has been plagued by divisions since a 2016-17 dispute which resulted in Pope Francis asking Matthew Festing to stand down as Grand Master in January 2017. Dalla Torre was formally elected as his successor the following year, a position he now holds for life. The official patron of the Order is Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is a well-known proponent of the Traditional Latin Mass.
It's all in the name of unity according to the Grand Master. After reading about the order of nuns in France it sounds almost as if these orders are being focused on.
I really don't want to believe it, but you may be right. They zero in on a target, and take them down. Very, very sad.
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-a...orn-scandal-charged-with-abusing-seminarians/ Argentine bishop at heart of phone porn scandal charged with abusing seminarians Inés San Martín Jun 10, 2019 ROME BUREAU CHIEF In this Aug. 26, 2016 file photo, former Bishop of Oran Gustavo Zanchetta participates in negotiations with border workers in Oran, Salta, Argentina. The public prosecutor’s office in the Argentine province of Salta said Friday, June 7, 2019, that a local prosecutor accused Bishop Zanchetta of “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious cult.” (Credit: AP Photo/Javier Corbalan, File.) ROME - Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, one of Pope Francis’s first episcopal appointments in his home country, has been formally accused of sexually abusing seminarians and could face 3 to 10 years in prison. The information was released on Friday by the prosecutor’s office in the Argentine northern province of Salta. The bishop was charged with “aggravated continuous sexual abuse committed by a minister of a religious organization.” Zanchetta, the former bishop of Oran, was accused of “strange behavior” in 2015 when a diocesan secretary found pornographic pictures on the prelate’s phone. The images included gay porn featuring young men, but not minors, as well as images of Zanchetta touching himself. They were allegedly sent to unknown third parties. Two years later, the bishop resigned from the diocese without explanation, but Francis appointed him to a newly created position at the Vatican’s Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), which serves as a central bank for the Vatican and oversees its financial holdings. After the first reports of “strange behavior” were sent to the Vatican in 2015, some priests in the diocese began to scrutinize the actions of Zanchetta, especially his interactions with seminarians. “I saw him hugging 16-year old boys, saw that the bishop was giving some of the students a beer, but nothing beyond that,” one person from Oran told Crux last March, but added that “after seeing the high-octane pornographic material in his phone, one begins to see everything as suspicious.” Oran is a small diocese of 280,000 people in the province of Salta, at the foothills of the Andes. On Thursday afternoon, prosecutor Mónica Viazzi charged him with sexual abuse aggravated by his position of authority as a bishop. Zanchetta had beeen scheduled to fly back to Rome on Friday; instead, his passport was confiscated and he was banned from leaving the country. In a recent interview with a Mexican news station, Francis revealed that Zanchetta is also facing a trial in the Vatican. If he’s found guilty of abusing minors - or vulnerable adults- he could be removed from the priesthood. “Before I asked for his resignation, there was an accusation, and I immediately made him come over with the person who accused him and explain it,” Francis told Mexican journalist Valentina Alazraki. According to Francis, Zanchetta argued that his phone had been hacked, and the pope believed him, so he sent the bishop back to Oran. “Evidently he had, some say, despotic treatment of others - he was bossy,” and a “not completely clear dealing of finances,” though as the pope noted, this hasn’t been proven. “But certainly, the clergy didn’t feel well treated by him,” Francis said. “They complained until they made an allegation as a body to the Nunciature,” the Vatican’s embassy in Argentina. The pope says that he then called the nuncio, who told him that the allegation of mistreatment was “serious,” and the pope understood it to be a case of “abuse of power.” So, he sent Zanchetta to Spain to receive psychological treatment and asked him to resign from the Diocese of Oran. When it comes to the fact that Zanchetta is accused of misusing funds, Francis said that at present there is no evidence of that, only that he wasn’t “ordered” when it came to money. Despite this, the pontiff said the bishop had a “good vision.” Once he had a replacement for the bishop, the pontiff said, he opened the investigation into the allegations against Zanchetta. He received the result of the investigation some 25 days ago, “and I decided that it’s necessary to have a trial. So, I gave it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” When reports of the allegations first arose in the media, the Vatican insisted Zanchetta had had problems governing his diocese when he was transferred to Rome, and that Rome had not learned of the abuse allegations until late 2018. On Friday, the public prosecutor’s office said that the prelate had remained silent during Thursday afternoon’s hearing, and that Zanchetta will undergo a psychological evaluation on June 12 as part of the investigation. In addition to being prohibited from leaving the country, the bishop has been asked to get a permanent address in Argentina; attend all future hearings on his case; avoid contact with the victims or their families, and exerting any further physical or psychological abuse on the victims. If he were to violate any of these demands, he’d be taken into custody. According to Enzo Gianotti, Zanchetta’s public defender, the bishop will comply with the requests made by the prosecutors.
So Zanchetta 'wasn't very ordered' when it came to finance, according to the Pope, and so he sends him to work at the Vatican bank! I should imagine that a lot of those involved in Vatican finances would have greeted such a financially hapless appointee with sighs of relief and open arms. Are you sure that this is not the script for an unlikely but amusing comedy movie?
You just can't make this stuff up. It seems more a script for an organized crime movie to me. It reads like one if you really stop to think about it. What better to do with someone you know is full of vice and has committed grave acts that will bring scandal to your door than move them away from where they will continue to create problems for you and put them where you wish to keep a lid on things. It is downright cunning. All one needs to do is leave a plausible explanation to fall back on that leaves just enough doubt to be convincing if all hell breaks loose. Something like we were investigating these claims and placed him in a position where he was away from temptation blah blah blah. Those in the church meanwhile are scratching their heads at the predicament it is constantly in will do the rest and even defend the actions of the Vatican (or stick their heads in the sand) because they simply can't reconcile what is happening and has been for decades. A false hope, one that many cling to.
THE GREAT BETRAYAL In his recent marathon interview with a Mexican journalist, Pope Francis said “relations with China are good, very good” and that two Chinese bishops – one Vatican-appointed from the “underground” Church and one appointed by the Communist government – with whom he recently met “know that they must be good patriots.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-chinese-bishops-must-be-good-patriots-to-communist-regime
I haven't finished watching the whole video yet, but this -Are Catholics Warriors? The Rosary (and Latin Mass) as Weapon with Fr Richard Heilman [Podcast] looks interesting so far
"Published on Jun 13, 2019 BISHOP THOMAS PAPROCKI of Springfield, Illinois and BISHOP ROBERT BARRON, auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, California join us from Baltimore with their analysis of this week’s US Conference of Catholic Bishops annual Spring Meeting. PHILIP LAWLER, editor of Catholic World News and author and economist DR. JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE join us with a layman’s perspective on the US Bishops’ Meeting, and analysis of the major Catholic news of the week."
Vigano continues to be brave in speaking the truth. May God protect him. Archbishop Viganò clarifies points arising from new interview Diane Montagna https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-vigano-clarifies-points-arising-from-new-interview Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano Photo by Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register ROME, June 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In the wake of two recent pieces in the Washington Post relating to Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, an article and an extended interview (the first the archbishop has granted since his initial allegations concerning Pope Francis), renewed insinuations and smears have been directed at the former diplomat of the Holy See. In his June 10 interview, the archbishop claims that the actions so far taken against McCarrick are chiefly inspired by a desire to prevent a trial of the former cardinal, which might expose the complicity of other churchmen in his actions and the ensuing coverup. This, Archbishop Viganò alleges, is why the Pope’s actions against McCarrick (removal from the sacred college and laicization) are all administrative and therefore without appeal. In other words, if a judicial process concluded that McCarrick was guilty of the accusations made against him, any appeal by McCarrick (who continues to protest his innocence) would inevitably expose the guilt of other senior prelates. By moving straight to the penalty without the trial, Pope Francis is able to avoid this potentially devastating development. Archbishop Viganò further insists that, above all other considerations, the present scandals engulfing the Church relate to homosexuality and self-protecting networks of clerical homosexuals, and the Vatican response to these scandals is directed towards protecting these networks at all costs. Although the former US nuncio is often described by his critics as an enemy of Pope Francis, he says in the interview that he is “not fighting against Pope Francis, nor have I offended him” but “simply spoken the truth.” “I am grateful to the Lord because He has protected me from having any sentiments of anger or resentment against Pope Francis, or any desire for revenge,” he writes. Critics of Archbishop Viganò are now asking why he did not make his concerns public much earlier. In comments to LifeSite following the release of the interview and summary article, Archbishop Viganò responded to this criticism, citing three reasons for the perceived delay. “Why did I wait so long? First, I was confident that the Church would find within herself the energy to be renewed, especially after the investigation Benedict XVI had ordered.” The former US nuncio explained this reason in his initial testimony last August. Indeed, he told LifeSite that he had already expressed this strong conviction as early as September 29, 2012, after Pope Benedict created a commission of three cardinals to investigate the leaking of documents in the Vatileaks case. He wrote to the three cardinals — Julian Herranz, Jozef Tomko and Salvatore De Giorgi — saying: “The power of truth must flow from within the Church and not from the media... I pray for you Cardinals, that you may have the courage to tell the Holy Father the truth; and I pray for the Holy Father, that he may have the strength to make it come to light in the Church.” “Whatever happened to the investigation ordered by Benedict XVI and conducted by the three cardinals? No one has said anything about this,” the archbishop observed. “If one wanted to clean up the corruption, addressing the findings of this report would be a good place to start. We all saw a box of documents handed over by one Pope to another at Castel Gandolfo, and now it’s disappeared.” “The second reason I couldn’t do anything,” he went on, “was because as long as Cardinal Bertone was still serving as Vatican Secretary of State, to whom could I have recourse? We all know that he got rid of me because I refused to approve unworthy candidates that he was pushing to be made bishops and was fighting against the corruption in the Curia and the Governatorate. Turning to the third reason, Archbishop Viganò explained that “shortly thereafter, Cardinal Pietro Parolin was appointed Secretary of State, at the time I was Nuncio in Washington, I wrote him a letter which I have mentioned numerous times, asking him if the measures imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were still valid, and he never responded.” Summarizing the nature of the obstacles he faced, he told LifeSite: I couldn’t surmount the barrier of Cardinal Bertone. Cardinal Parolin didn’t reply, pretending nothing has happened. And no one has dared to ask him firmly if he received the letter or not? And then, having told Pope Francis in 2013, what more could I have done? I trusted that Pope Francis would do things as any Pope would have done. I always trusted in him. And then, once I saw that he himself was covering them up, I couldn’t remain quiet. The frustration of all the avenues he had attempted placed the archbishop in a morally impossible situation. “A series of events over time first impeded me and later obliged me to speak out. I no longer had the confidence that the Church would renew herself from within. I spoke out when I realized that inside the Church they were all covering up the abuse. Before, I always thought they would remedy it.” Mysterious donations from Bishop Bransfield In his comments to LifeSite, Archbishop Viganò also elaborated on the monetary gifts he received from Bishop Michael J. Bransfield, of the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston. According to a June 5 article in the Washington Post, Bishop Bransfield gave cash gifts totaling $350,000 to fellow priests and high-ranking prelates. The Washington Post noted that Archbishop was among the prelates who received $6,000 from Bransfield, but merely said that that the former US nuncio said he gave the gifts to charity. Archbishop Viganò was keen to make the circumstances clear. Bransfield was prone to these mysterious gifts but for the incoming Nuncio they came as rather a surprise. “I arrived in Washington in mid-November 2011. I began to receive these donations not only from Bishop Bransfield as a Christmas present. I asked the staff at the nunciature, ‘What is this?’ They told me: ‘This is a custom. You have to accept it. If you send it back, it will be taken as an insult.’” Archbishop Viganò decided to give the money away, telling LifeSite: “Since I had a charity fund, I therefore decided to allocate it for charity.” “I consulted the staff of the nunciature, especially the Americans, and they told me: ‘It’s always been done this way.’” In fact, documents obtained by the Washington Post investigation revealed that the previous nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, had during his tenure received $28,000 from Bransfield. Rejecting the idea that he should refund the money even though he immediately gave it away, the Archbishop remarked, “People might say: ‘a nice excuse that you gave it to charity, while others are giving it back.’ It’s not that I didn’t think about giving it back. But I asked the staff, and they told me it was a custom. What did they want me to do? I gave nothing in exchange.” Archbishop Viganò said the funds were allocated to the provision of priestly scholarships for African clergy.
Insane the amount of paganism coming from Rome and attempting to be passed off as Catholic education these days. Smoke of Satan indeed. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...-critique-of-new-vatican-doc-on-gender-theory Psychologist gives searing critique of Vatican’s new gender doc: a compromise with ‘neo-paganism’ catholic, gender theory, gerard van den aardweg, vatican ROME, June 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A Catholic psychologist has denounced the latest Vatican document on gender theory as containing “not one sentence of sound advice for parents who try to educate their children towards the virtues necessary for a Christian life.” In a searing critique, Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aarweg, a Dutch psychologist and psychoanalyst specializing in the treatment of persons with homosexual tendencies, condemned the recent Vatican document on gender theory, saying “the aggressive neo-pagan sexual ideology of the world has no wisdom we might share. The task of the Church is not dialoguing but teaching and correcting, there is a relentless spiritual war going on in the field of sexuality, marriage, and the family.” The (non-magisterial) document, titled “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Towards a path of dialogue on the question of gender theory in education,” was published by the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education on June 10. Addressed to Catholic schools and those involved in the formation of children and young people, the document has provoked admiration and consternation and drawn considerable attention in the Catholic and secular media. Catholic media on the whole have shown a favorable response. The New York Times focused on the document’s rejection of the idea of gender fluidity. And “LGBT” activists criticized the text for its clear affirmation that human persons are either “male” or “female,” saying it keeps the Vatican “in the dark ages, promoting a false teaching that relies on myth, rumor, and falsehoods.” In the midst of these conflicting opinions, LifeSite spoke with Dr. van den Aarweg — author of “The Battle for Normality” (Ignatius press) and “Science says NO: The gay ‘marriage’ deception” — about his view on the document. The Dutch psychologist did not mince his words. Here below is our interview with Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg. LifeSite: Dr. van den Aardweg, what are your general impressions of the Vatican’s new document on gender theory? Dr. van den Aardweg: Basically, it is an ideological document. It is not specifically Catholic, in spite of some lip service. It essentially makes a plea for a kind of atheist-humanist/socialist sex education, presented as more or less Catholic. It gushes over the boons of a social model of sexual education monitored by “professional experts” on the basis of naively supposed ever-deepening insights into sexuality in the current human sciences. It represents the kind of illusionary and sentimental talk about education and “affectivity” characteristic of the immature and superficial humanistic psychology of the 1960s, but now proclaimed as ‘higher wisdom’ by a Vatican Congregation whose members run half a century behind the times. It is ‘dialogue’ and ‘listening’ and ‘openness’ all over again. But no listening to the divine teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality, marriage and the family (for these seem in need of ‘restructuring’). Teaching and preaching them to a pagan world is not, it seems, the way forward. The great dream is an “alliance” with the neo-paganism of the sexual, marriage, and family ideology of the UN and the anti-Christian EU countries. “Listening.” Well, listening attentively to the document’s vague and ambiguous formulations and suggestions in order to discern what it drives at, one can discern its lead motive: revolutionary change. What is your view on its analysis of gender theory? The observations on gender theory are ambiguous and unclear, and that makes them suspect. At face value, some phrases seem correct and “orthodox,” such as the denials that sexual “identity is not a choice of the individual,” and platitudes such as “sexuality [a person’s sex] is a fundamental component of personhood” or “every cell in the body is male or female.” However, they are simultaneously undermined by statements such as (I abbreviate): “The approach to gender theory [is] the path of dialogue.” Why would that be so? No answer, because we are in the domain of ideology. What is there to dialogue about? We know the effects of dialoguing from the experiences with the Communists. The enemies of Christianity will dialogue with you in their way, on their terms. The outcome is none other than dialoguing with the devil. The aggressive neo-pagan sexual ideology of the world has no wisdom we might share. The task of the Church is not dialoguing but teaching and correcting, there is a relentless spiritual war going on in the field of sexuality, marriage, and the family. Another example: “Human sciences … [present] other work … which tries a deeper understanding.” There follows a vague reference to works about the “sexual difference between men and women in a variety of cultures.” Here as everywhere in this document, only suggestions or insinuations are given, without a shadow of proof. So, which allegedly better “work” is meant here? I surmise the authors refer to the once-popular writings of Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, the lesbian feminists who attempted to show the relativity of sex roles and functions in non-Western societies. But their contentions have long been refuted as being based on false, partly even fraudulent, evidence. Continued..
The relativization of the unpopular Biblical view of man-woman relationships and social “roles,” in apparent support of feminist (and gay?) indignation, also appears in the glib contention about “unjust discrimination,” which is “a sad fact of history” also “within the Church.” The Church would have violated the “equal dignity of men and women” in consequence of a “masculinist [sic] mentality veiled by religious motives.” If this is not a sneer at the Catholic teaching about man as the head and woman as the heart of the family, and the woman’s duty to obey her husband etc., what else is being suggested? Or, looked at from a different angle, who can believe the authors of this text are still capable of transmitting the unchangeable divine teachings of the Apostles, St. Augustine, and the Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI? Probably, these authors, blinded by the spirit of the times (Zeitgeist), do not even understand them anymore, nor do they seem to know and understand the correct anthropological and psychological insight of St. Edith Stein that “woman is by nature mother and the companion of the man.” For any Catholic who knows and understands this truth would have made it the cornerstone of a discourse on the equal value of man and woman. Equally disquieting is the authors’ dubious appreciation of the natural family: “To qualify it [the family] with ideological concepts which are compelling at only one moment in history, and then decline … is a betrayal of its true significance.” Do the aforementioned apostolic teachings belong to the category of temporary historical “ideologies” about male and female? If not, why didn’t they recommend them at all; and what false ideological concepts have been attached to the family that are not essential? For example, has the traditional concept of the Christian family in the light of the present enlightened insights been narrowed by our cultural prejudices? In sum, give a clear, unambiguous definition of the natural and God-willed family and unambiguously reject the political definition of, among others, the Christian Democrats. The document frequently cites Pope John Paul II. What do you think of its use of his writings? Pope John Paul II is quoted but fairly hypocritically. His prestige is abused to create the impression of orthodoxy, a characteristic the writing as a whole has no right to claim. The authors have even the evil courage to recall the name of Don Bosco, whose teachings and efforts were diametrically opposed to theirs and were therefore truly exemplary. Does the document presume that sex-education should always be made available in schools? Is the position the document takes in this regard consistent with the constant teaching of the Church? Parental rights in education are professed with words, but the whole, and in essence, socialistic-bureaucratic organization to educate the “sexuality and affectivity” of children and youngsters about which these utopians are dreaming will no doubt soon squeeze the parents’ rights into extinction. The proposed educational “professionals” within and outside the school, with their “permanent education” coming from “universities” etc., with their close association with the secular organizations (“local, national and international”!), with their new “programmes, instruction materials, and reference books,” and paid by who else but the State, will guarantee politically-correct sex ed. It proposes an idealistic “educational alliancebetween family, school, and society”: come to Holland, Germany, or Great Britain and see how smoothly it functions… No one who objects, no school, no collective of Catholic parents, only a rare Catholic teacher, a loner, a few exceptional Catholic parents, who refuse to cooperate with these cheerful “programmes” that violate their pupils’ and children’s innocence. Indeed, as this Vatican document remarks, “the family is not left to face the challenges of educating the young on its own.” And the “authorization” of the parents is a good principle, but “to a certain degree.” Do you have any other comments? The conclusion of the document, though still evading honestly straightforward and unambiguous language, helps in grasping its real meaning and purposes. Consider these high-falutin’ declarations: “The (educational formators) have the mission to teach them [young people] sensitivity to different expressions of love, mutual concern and care, loving respect (sic) and a deeply meaningful communication”; “Train young people to be open and interested in the reality that surrounds them, capable of care and tenderness.” This has been precisely the sales pitch of the neo-pagan Sexual Reform Movement for at least a century. All kinds of sexual or “love” relationships fit into this ideal, unmarried as well as gay ones. There is nothing in the Vatican text about sexual sin, the fight for chastity, masturbation, unfaithfulness in marriage, unmarried cohabitation, chastity in marriage; not one sentence of sound advice for parents who try to educate their children towards the virtues necessary for a Christian life and against the pressure of the neo-pagan environment, school, and even church; nothing about contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Finally, the style of the piece is terrible: it is permeated by pompous and sentimental language, hypocritical unctuousness. The intellectual level is substandard. No concept that is used is defined, no statement proved or even supported by some argumentation; the references and remarks relative to anthropology and psychology (“the human sciences”) are misplaced or outright nonsensical, and yet they are solemnly presented as ‘superior wisdom.’ A Vatican congregation which dares to produce and issue such a document should seriously consider closing up shop.
And now a priest rebuked by his archbishop in Canada for the same thing PETITION: Support Canadian priest rebuked by archbishop for opposing LGBT Pride PETITION: Support Canadian priest rebuked by archbishop for opposing LGBT Pride | LifePetitions
So sad to see this happen once again. False mercy disguised as compassion; the archbishop will accompany these poor souls to hell. I pray for this courageous priest who took a stand to protect the children who would be exposed to this event, and to defend the faith.
