I have my doubts, if they come to ask for prayers. Yes. If they came to make a statement especially without requesting prayers? Well, no. Emphatically no. I have never heard of such a thing before. It's always a request for prayer Always. Always. Always That's why God let's them out and about
In addition to the theological problems mentioned by Padraig, it appears that "holy" Hickey was a great defender of someone we all wish we didn't know about. https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...port-clericalism-sexual-abuse-catholic-church In 1994, when planning was in progress for one of John Paul II’s visits to the United States, then-Archbishop McCarrick was working to include a stop in Newark onto the agenda for the trip (Section X.B. of the report). During this planning process, various reports and rumors swirling around McCarrick reached the nuncio. Note that the concern here, characteristically, was not whether or not McCarrick was a danger to anyone in his care but that a Newark stop during the papal visit increased the risk that rumors about McCarrick would come to light. The nuncio reached out to Cardinal James A. Hickey, then archbishop of Washington, D.C., for his advice. These failures are not just tragic accidents but the predictable outcome of the incentives and attitudes that have shaped the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. After praising McCarrick effusively, Cardinal Hickey suggests that reforms that he had been implementing in Newark may have “earned a few enemies along the way!” He then goes on to suggest that the lack of prior examples reduces the likelihood of McCarrick’s misconduct since such “tendencies...do not emerge in one’s 50’s or 60’s but rather in early adulthood. If the Archbishop had those tendencies it would be very surprising that no one had detected them until recently.” But of course, what “no one had detected” means, in practice, is that no one had successfully managed to get church officials to take notice of concerns about McCarrick, which by 1994 had not only been reported in anonymous letters accusing him of pedophilia but also by multiple priests who told their bishops about the abuse they experienced from McCarrick in their seminary years. It is quite likely that Cardinal Hickey himself did not know about these other reports—but he did not know because other bishops had not dealt thoroughly with reports that came to them, and he treated that ignorance, itself a product of clerical self-protection, as evidence to justify ignoring the same claims again. That pattern of clerical self-protection, the cultivation of ignorance and deniability, is also on display in Cardinal Hickey’s letter. In addition to speculating that these rumors were from “enemies” McCarrick had made in Newark, Cardinal Hickey casts aspersions on the priest whose report found its way to the nuncio, describing him as “doctrinally sound” but with a “strong ideological edge to his conversation” because he had criticized McCarrick without considering the possibility that the cardinal might know him. The report also documents that the nuncio, after his conversation with Cardinal Hickey, emerged with the impression that the priest was possibly slandering or exaggerating his account and that a superior of a women’s religious community, who had notified the nuncio of the allegations, had done so because “she wanted to make herself appear important.” In other words, the substance of the allegations need not be further explored because the motives of those involved—actors on the edges of the church’s circles of power—had been impugned. Cardinal Hickey then recommends to the nuncio that he not personally interview the priest making the allegation but instead have another staff member at the nunciature interview him under oath, and “if the accuser is unwilling to come forward,” he suggests the matter be dropped. But of course, this approach telegraphs to the accuser—who in this case was also McCarrick’s victim—that it is his reputation, not McCarrick’s, that is most at risk. (The prospect of interviewing McCarrick under oath about the allegation seems not to have been considered.) Finally, Cardinal Hickey concludes that plans for the Newark visit should go forward and that McCarrick should be “presumed completely innocent in view of his many years of devoted service and his well-deserved reputation as a churchman beyond reproach.” There is a conflation here between the presumption of innocence owed to anyone who is accused and a presumption owed to McCarrick because of his clerical status.
Everything here is true.....off the cuff, reading the questions, St. Maximilian Kolbe popped right into my mind. Could he have secretly converted/baptized anyone during his time there? I love these kind of thoughts and questions ~ and right now, it's very true that we don't know the answers.....But God does. Naive of me perhaps, but it gives me hope Adding: perhaps it was a help for Cardinal Hickey, if this did happen.....having only briefly skimmed PNF posts, sounds like he may have needed a kick.
It's so sad. The Irish names kill me. Of course if they got up to this stuff in the USA some of them must have been doing it in Ireland . Heart breaking. I was always so proud of being Irish. But on the other hand so many, good holy, even saintly clergy, like Father Solanums Casey.
Someone once asked, during the McCarrick outing, "why are they always Irish?". At the time, in 2018, I started digging into that myself, especially because of the Newfoundland "issues". What I found at the time was unreal. It started with, believe it or not, the Christian Brothers in Ireland. Going way way way back, there was a protestant guy who helped them fund the schools. While reading about the history, it really sunk in how hind sight is 20/20. People trusted this man, who genuinely seemed to want to help with the education of Catholics. But the schools turned into what was termed "disciplinary", but in fact were really torture chambers. Families thought their sons were getting a good education and being taught discipline. From what I read, it was horrid. Then they sprung up in Boston. Infiltration had already taken place. One kind of torture, over time, turned to something else. Eventually they moved north to Newfoundland......and the "problem" spread elsewhere......... Of course I didn't save the sources of what I read at the time although I have tried to find it again; it's like it all disappeared into the internet abyss. Maybe someone like yourself could fill in the blanks... Be proud. It was because Irish people were/are so trusting that these things happened. Again, hind sight is 20/20. The perpetrators of these crimes will receive their rewards, God help them.
The word nazism did exist. Go to site threeworldwars Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other (Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau - as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.) From the site Threeworldwars..... Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China. (Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau - as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)
I was listening to a history programme yesterday about the start of the First World War. I was struck by nearly all the world's leaders and royalty were horror stricken at the he thoughts that of a Great War and very many of them wept openly when it began. They knew it meant the death of millions, very often their own children. Many of them tried desperately to avoid it. But it was like me a giant evil whirlpool that swept them all long with it. The then Pope Benedict was said to died of a broken heart when it began. He was called all kinds of names by all sides for trying to broker peace. It seems to me there are far more causes and signs of a coming war than back than nowadays. But what can we do but only pray?
WWI really opened the floodgates. Below are nine kings in London for the funeral of Edward VII in 1910, only a couple years later and everything will have changed so much
Padre Pio was conscripted as a medical orderly but God kept him clear of it all by sending him high fevers. After the Italians were defeated by the Austrians the Italian General was about to commit suicide when Padre Pio bilocated and walking into his tent stopped the poor man from suicide. Padre Pio must have only been his twenties back then. May God grant us many saints to help us through the next Great War.
