The Vatican Has Fallen

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Dec 31, 2016.

  1. It is implied that he will be the one to shepherd the flock in the hard times prior to and going into the Era of Peace/Divine Will. There may be a period of time beforehand that we are without anyone filling the Chair due to whatever circumstances engulf the institutional Church......schism, going underground, forbidden public worship, etc. Some prophecies say it will be Peter himself who points out the one who will be the last of this era.....a lot of yet to be imagined occurrences (except through prophecy) could probably be necessitated....and in what would seem to be, to us, a supernatural kind of interference.
     
    Joan J and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  2. And BTW, that article, w/ pic, is linked by Spirit Daily.
     
  3. Jarg

    Jarg Archangels

    We can only thank God, Our Mother, and Padre Pio probably too ;-) for this courageous capuchin!

    https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/10/31/the-letter-one-year-later/

    Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.
    WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2018

    A year ago tomorrow I made public a letter that I wrote to Pope Francis expressing my deep concern about the “chronic confusion” in the Church and the way that his “seemingly intentional lack of clarity risks sinning against the Holy Spirit.”

    In the immediate aftermath of the letter’s publication, I received over 300 emails and over 40 letters (most from the United States, but a fair number from many countries around the world) – all of which, except two, were positive.

    Moreover, over the course of the past year I received another 100 or so emails and even Christmas cards from people I did not know – all of which were, again, positive. The majority of the responses were from the laity who expressed their support and invariably thanked me for giving expression to their concerns and thoughts, but believed either that they did not have the ability to articulate them or felt, if they did express them, that they would not be heard or taken seriously.

    Besides the laity, I also received significant responses from Catholic academics and, surprisingly, from over thirty bishops – all positive. And this does not include the many affirmative comments, from laity, academics and bishops, I have received in person when speaking at or attending conferences over the past year.

    Many people have expressed their regret that I have suffered because of the letter, but I have suffered very little compared to the joy I have experienced – the delight of knowing that so many of the faithful were grateful and pleased at what I had done.

    What I want to highpoint in this brief message, however, is not the importance of my letter to Pope Francis or the positive responses to it, but what for me is the significance of what Jesus is doing in his Church.

    Readers may recall that, while I was in Rome last year, I spent a considerable amount of time in St. Peter’s praying about whether I should articulate my apprehensions and concerns about this present pontificate. In the end, I asked Jesus for a sign.

    If he wanted me to write something, I asked that he allow me, within about a five-hour time frame, to meet someone I knew but had not seen in many years, and that I would never expect to see in Rome at this particular time. The person could not be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain. Moreover, in the course of our conversation, the person would have to say to me – “Keep up the good writing.”

    [​IMG]
    *
    That is a very complex sign to say the least, and I now believe that it is in itself an inspiration of the Holy Spirit because, on my own, I could never have concocted such an intricate scenario. Jesus did fulfill the sign in every particular and did so in a most marvelous way, for the person he chose to enact the sign was an archbishop.

    Two clerics publically mocked and made fun of the sign and its fulfillment, but here I want to offer my personal opinion concerning its importance – at least its significance for me.

    That Jesus fulfilled my requested sign struck me as Jesus expressing his own concern for the troubling situation that presently exists within the Church, his body. From this personal perspective, I thought that, in the end, his loving concern for his Church far exceeds my own, and what he is doing is far more important than the writing of my letter to Pope Francis.

    I came to see my letter as a mere postscript to the concern Jesus himself manifested when he fulfilled my sign. Others may have different interpretations or no perspective at all, but I thought it worthwhile that I share my own understanding.

    A great deal has happened within the Church in the year since I made public my letter. I do not need to rehearse all of the evils that have now come to light. They are common knowledge. The concerns and apprehensions that I expressed in my letter are more relevant now than they were a year ago.

    The Body of Christ presently suffers more than it did then – and I fear the suffering will become even more intense. Moreover, in the midst of what has been exposed, many commentaries and analyses have been published in newspapers, journals, the Internet, and in blogs, some better than others, but all decrying the present ecclesial situation and often offering ways forward.

    For me, what is presently most troubling is the vague, uncertain and often seemingly nonchalant ecclesial response to the evil, not only to the grievous sexual misconduct among the clergy and bishops, but also to the scandalous undermining of the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture and the Church’s magisterial tradition.

    Likewise, there appears to be little awareness of or concern for the suffering that this mentality has inflicted upon the Church, especially upon the laity. Significantly and sadly, even if those in authority were to make adequate responses to the evil at hand from this point on, it would not be sufficient to rebuild the trust that has been broken by their past words and actions.

    Yes, many in high ecclesial positions are good and forthright men, but they are not the ones who are presently being listened to, or making the decisions, or setting the ecclesial tone.

    I am, nonetheless, hopeful. I am hopeful because I know that many are praying and even fasting for the renewal of faith within the Church. Moreover, I am convinced more now than a year ago, that by exposing all of the evil, the Lord Jesus is in the process of purifying his body, the Church.

    The present sin within the Church is often terrifying and disheartening to see. It is good for us to keep in mind, however, that the fire of the Holy Spirit may burn, but its burning is unto holiness – and that is wondrous to behold.



    *Image: Christ Cleansing the Temple by Bernardino Mei, c.1655 [J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles]
     
    Carol55, Joan J, DeGaulle and 4 others like this.
  4. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    You are on a roll, Jarg. Thanks for posting another great article.
     
    Byron likes this.
  5. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Byron and Carol55 like this.
  6. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria


    Here is a link to the letter that Father Mark Goring is highlighting in his latest video above, http://franciscanfriars.com/wp-content/uploads/September.2018.CFR_.letter.to_.US_.Nuncio.pdf and a link to where this letter was posted http://franciscanfriars.com/letter-to-the-nuncio/#more-' .

    In addition, here are the parts of the letter that Father Goring specifically discusses in his video:

    upload_2018-11-1_11-44-34.png
    upload_2018-11-1_11-45-11.png

    Here is this good priest's video from yesterday,


    and his video from two days ago,


    PS- In the letter posted above you may notice that a Father John Paul Ouellette has signed it. He is not Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who refuted Archbishop Carol Vigano's claims regarding the sexual scandal in the Church. I state this due the similarity in their last names.
     
    SgCatholic and Byron like this.
  7. SteveD

    SteveD Archangels

    BrianK, SgCatholic, AED and 4 others like this.
  8. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    VERY good article. It helps a lot.
     
    BrianK and AED like this.
  9. padraig

    padraig New Member

    Wow!!

    Fr Mark again; this kid is just amazing!! I love him to bits!!

    So young, so wise, so simple in the way he resents things.

     
    Praetorian and AED like this.
  10. padraig

    padraig New Member

    What a lovely honest man. I must admit thought it is not the corruption in the Church that concerns me most but the out and out heresy. I was a little surprised he did not address this more.
     
    Praetorian likes this.
  11. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    EWTN panel: Francis is damaging himself and Church by not answering Viganò’s allegations
    Lisa Bourne
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/e...g-himself-and-church-by-not-answering-viganos

    [​IMG]
    Papal Posse Oct. 25, 2018. EWTN / Youtube screen grab
    WASHINGTON, D.C., November 1, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Church has a serious problem with negligent bishops in the clergy sex abuse crisis, and Pope Francis must act, noted Catholic commentators said on the Oct. 25 broadcast of EWTN’s World Over program.

    Canon lawyer and priest for the Archdiocese of New York Father Gerald Murray said in the discussion that homosexuality is very much a factor in the sexual abuse crisis, and Editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing Robert Royal said both the pope’s legacy and the Church’s credibility hang in the balance with Francis’s response to the scandal.

    Host Raymond Arroyo questioned in the waning days of the Youth Synod why so little attention had been given to the story of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s third testimony dispelling and answering back the open letter to him from Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops.

    (Video here)


    “I think that Archbishop Viganò responding to Cardinal Ouellet has said very eloquently what’s at stake here,” Murray told Arroyo, and said that Viganò’s testimony may have been lost in the news on the Synod and other things.

    “We have a serious problem in the United States with negligence by bishops concerning priests who committed sexual abuse,” Murray said.

    He went on to detail the significance of the McCarrick situation as related to how the Church hierarchy has responded to it.

    Why hasn’t McCarrick been removed from the priesthood?
    “We have the problem of Cardinal, now ex-Cardinal McCarrick,” he said. “Cardinal McCarrick when he was, back in June still Cardinal, he was accused, and reliably accused, according to the Holy See, of having abused an altar boy in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.”

    “We’re now at the end of October,” Murray stated. “Why hasn’t Cardinal McCarrick’s trial happened? Why hasn’t he been removed from the priesthood?”

    “He wasn’t simply negligent about what other people did,” said Murray. “He’s the one causing the harm.”

    “He was then accused by a second person of having abused him since he was 11 years old,” Father Murray added. “The Holy See’s reaction cannot be slow and simply issuing apologies. Victims have been coming forward based on the Pennsylvania matter, now other probes are happening. The Holy See has to act.”

    This must include a tribunal set up so that the Church investigates Her own crimes, he said, and doesn’t leave it up to the secular authorities to do it.

    “It’s a mess, it needs to be cleaned up, and I’m glad the pope’s doing it in Chile, he just removed two bishops who committed sexual abuse,” said Murray. “Let’s start doing it here.”

    They still don’t get it
    Ouellet had responded earlier this month to Viganò’s August 25 testimonyalleging that Francis and several high-level prelates were complicit in covering up former U.S. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s homosexual abuse of seminarians.

    Viganò followed his explosive initial testimony with subsequent statements on the pope’s silence in the matter and explaining his breaking the promise of pontifical secrecy to expose the cover-up. In his second testimony, Viganò had appealed to Ouellet to release key documents in the matter and “bear witness to the truth.”

    Ouellet had responded to Viganò in an open letter, saying in part that Viganò’s testimony was ‘political’ and ‘extremely reprehensible.’

    While the initial testimony is said to have rocked the Roman curia, Viganò’s third testimony was considered by some to be the most significant for various reasons.

    The panel talked about whether there was ample discussion of the abuse crisis at the Youth Synod, and Royal posed that the Vatican listens too much to European, and especially Italian media, which doesn’t seem to be as outraged about priestly abuse as in the U.S.

    “They still don’t get, they still don’t understand that the United States is a different kind of culture,” he said, “that for us this is almost a defining moment for the Church and for this papacy.”

    You cannot just allow secular authorities to pursue people who committed crimes and think that solves the problem, Royal said.

    (Continues below....)
     
    Don_D likes this.
  12. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Will Church act and show itself to have moral credibility?
    “The Church itself has to show itself capable of recognizing and acting, not just on people who are abusers, but also on bishops,” he said, “whether they abused themselves or whether they covered up or they looked the other way.”

    “This is a serious problem defining whether the Church is going to have moral credibility,” said Royal. “One of the reasons why it’s come up again and again (at the Synod) with the young people, is they tell the bishops, that unless this issue is dealt with, openly and effectively, it’s going to damage your credibility with our age cohort.”

    Arroyo displayed a passage from Viganò’s third testimony in which Viganò identified the root cause of much of the sexual abuse as homosexuality. He asked his guests whether this message had been received in Rome, or simply dismissed as a political move against the pope.

    Murray pointed out that in his August 5 letter to the Chilean hierarchy praisingthe bishops for having reflected on their earlier failures to address abuse, Francis did identify homosexual priests in seminaries preying on seminarians.

    So the pope is aware, he said, and taking action in Chile. But the real issue, he said is an overall acceptance of homosexual acts.

    'This is a problem'
    “Look, the problem here gets down to this,” Murray stated, “people are overly sympathetic to the point of view of saying if someone has a homosexual desire and acts on it, we shouldn’t get too upset about it. We should just basically say well don’t do it anymore, and then that’s all.”

    “And the way the Church has traditionally taught this,” he continued, “is, yes, we feel sorry for people who have disordered affections, but we do not entrust them with authority over other people, we don’t put them in situations where they’re going to repeat offend.”

    “Everyone’s saying, well we have to normalize homosexuality in the life of the Church - that’s on the other side, I would say,” Murray said. “And our answer is, look, normality is what we want to have.”

    “We want to help people who have a homosexual problem in their life, but we can’t just pretend it’s not at the root of why all of these victims have been victimized over the years, primarily teenage boys by male clerics,” said Murray. “This is a problem.”

    There’s going to be damage to the pope and damage to the Church if Francis does not act
    Arroyo pointed out that the pope has yet to answer the charges in Viganò’s testimonies. He asked Royal if Francis can continue to remain silent and can he stonewall as he did with the dubia.

    “Well he can, obviously,” Royal responded. “But there’s going to be a damage to him and there’s going to be a damage to the Church, and that’s going to be a price that’s going to have to be paid for not answering something that patently has to be responded to.”

    Royal said he thought in a way the Ouellet letter was concocted to be a kind of a response to Viganò.

    “But it’s very clear; no one has really stepped forward and rebutted the charges that he makes,” stated Royal.

    “They talk about the way he went about it, or did the pope, this or that, was it a sanction, was it a private letter,” he said. “These are all secondary issues.”

    “The main factor here is that we know that people in the Vatican going back 15-20 years knew very well that McCarrick was damaged goods,” said Royal, “and yet somehow he moved up the food chain and became cardinal archbishop of Washington.”

    He recounted how the scenario played out; McCarrick retired and the offenses he’d committed earlier could be quietly used to keep him in check, he receives a letter from Pope Benedict XVI telling him that he should live a life of prayer and penitence, he’s not to appear in public or have public liturgies, etc.

    “But somehow when Francis is elected, he comes back from the dead,” said Royal. “These things cannot be ignored - they can be ignored, but there’s a price to pay for this.”

    Viganò’s testimonies have not been refuted
    “And enough of this is now known that has not been refuted, there’s nothing in the Ouellet letter that changes those basic facts,” he said. “This may very well be a defining moment for the papacy, whatever else Pope Francis does.”

    Arroyo wrapped up the segment noting that McCarrick was not the only cardinal or bishop who rose in the ranks and had a record of this sort and people knew of it.

    “This is just the one instance that Viganò is pointing out where he informed the pope in this case and other officials at the Vatican, and literally nothing was done.”
     
    Carol55, Don_D and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  13. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    I'm not sure whether to post this great video here or in the Fatima thread, but here is the latest from Dr Taylor Marshall:

     
  14. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria

    upload_2018-11-3_15-15-49.png
    Nov. 2, 2018 | http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/is-catholic-clergy-sex-abuse-related-to-homosexual-priests
    Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse Related to Homosexual Priests?
    An interview with sociologist Father Paul Sullins, whose new study documents a strong linkage between the incidence of abuse and homosexuality in the priesthood and in seminaries.
    Matthew E. Bunson

    On Nov. 2, the Ruth Institute published a new report that dares to ask a question many researchers — and Catholics — have been afraid to ask: What has been the role of active homosexuality and homosexual subcultures in the priesthood and in seminaries on the sex-abuse crisis?

    The report — which indicates a very strong correlation between homosexual priests and homosexual subcultures and the incidence of clergy sexual abuse — is in part a response to the two important studies commissioned by the U.S. Bishops in the face of the sex-abuse crisis that were conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The 2004 study was entitled, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States,” and the 2011 report was called, “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010.”

    The 2011 report was heavily criticized at the time of its release for its assertion that it found no evidence that homosexual priests were to blame for the abuse crisis, despite the fact that more than 80% of the victims were male and that 78% were postpubescent. Critics claimed that the report bowed to political correctness and fear of a backlash in academia.

    Seven years on, the Ruth Institute has weighed into the research of the sex-abuse crisis, specifically addressing the issue of homosexuality. A global nonprofit organization, the Ruth Institute was founded by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., to help study and find solutions to the toxic impact of the sexual revolution. The new report was the work of Father D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., a senior research associate of the Ruth Institute. Father Sullins recently retired as professor of sociology at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C., and has focused on same-sex parenting and its implications for child development, the trauma that women suffer following abortion, and the impact of clergy sex abuse. A former Episcopalian, Father Sullins is a married Catholic priest.

    The central thrust of the report is that the share of homosexual men in the priesthood rose from twice that of the general population in the 1950s to eight times the general population in the 1980s, a trend that was strongly correlated with increasing child sex abuse. At the same time, a quarter of priests ordained in the late 1960s report the existence of a homosexual subculture in their seminaries, rising to over half of priests ordained in the 1980s, a second trend that was also strongly correlated with increasing child sex abuse.

    Father Sullins spoke to the Register about the report on Oct. 31. Aware of the controversy that will surround any effort to research the possible role of homosexual priests in the clergy sex-abuse crisis, including the likelihood he will be demonized and called a homophobe, he said bluntly, “To people who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate.”

    It is probably safe to say that your report is going to spark some controversy. Why do you feel that this type of study is so long overdue?

    There is a widespread denial of any possible negative effects of homosexual activity or any findings that might not be benign for homosexual persons in the scholarly realm. And I think that, to some extent, that’s true for the scholarly work that’s been done on Catholic clergy sex abuse. There’s not been a willingness to confront the evidence on this topic, and I don’t know if I want to speculate further than that.

    Do we have clerics who just don’t want to see or don’t want to know that we may have embedded homosexual activity among priests that’s wreaking harm in some ways to the Church? That may be the case. We have found in the last six months that there’s a possibility that bishops have not pursued a wide knowledge on this topic.

    Some have called it a cover-up. There’s evidence that there’s a lack of energy or interest in finding out the relation of homosexuality to this activity. I don’t know if I would call it a cover-up. I may have used the word “cover-up” in the paper just to go along with the common term, but it may be if there’s a cover-up that it’s also extended to releasing data about the sex abuse and in authorizing folks to look at it. For example, in the data release to the John Jay Institute at John Jay College of Criminal Justice — which, by the way, did two wonderful reports on abuse with a lot of very helpful information — the data that the bishops released to them, the diocese was de-identified. They were not able to tell in what diocese the instances of abuse occurred.

    Why do you think that was?

    Well, I don’t know why that was. Typically, you will de-identify individuals because you don’t want to impugn the reputation of individuals. That makes a lot of sense. But if you have an institution where you have a widespread problem, whether it’s abuse or embezzlement or theft or whatever, you’d like to know in what sectors of that institution that occurred more frequently than others. Typically, you would like to say, “Well, over here in this division, they had a great record. Let’s try to see what we can do to make the whole institution more like this division, so as to reduce this unwanted behavior.” That did not occur here. Could it be that the bishops, some bishops, did not want to know, did not want to have people know what dioceses were better and what dioceses were worse? I don’t know.

    We know from what John Jay College did report that there were a number of dioceses who had no or very few instances of sex abuse over the last 50 years. We don’t know what those are. That might be a kind of a cover-up, or not letting us know everything that we would like to know in order to address the abuse.

    Now, by contrast, the recent grand jury report from Pennsylvania put everything out there. We know exactly where and when each instance of abuse occurred. I do look at that data to some extent in this report, and it’s very helpful, but we have a possibility to do much more investigation and report on data like that, which will begin to let us know: Were there dirty dioceses and clean dioceses? We’d like to know that about seminaries. Were there dirty seminaries and clean seminaries? We have these reports of homosexual subcultures and seminaries that have been affected by abuse. We don’t know what seminaries those are. Wouldn’t it be helpful to us if there was a handful of seminaries that were really spawning this kind of behavior and lots of clean seminaries that weren’t? It would really help us a lot to be able to know that in order to address this problem and to eliminate it as best we can and for the safety and security of our children, particularly our young boys.

    continued...
     
  15. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria

    continued from above...

    When you read the John Jay Report when it first came out, what was your initial reaction to it?

    Well, actually, I didn’t read it when it first came out. Like everybody else, I kind of glanced at it, but I have read both John Jay Reports recently. We should say [John Jay] came out with a report in 2004 on the nature and scope of the abuse and followed that up in 2011 with a great study on the causes and context to the abuse. And in between those two, they had gathered more data; they had surveyed some of the offenders and so had access to some clinical data that really was very helpful and reported very well.

    My analysis focuses mostly on that second report, and what I take issue with is the conclusion that the abuse was unrelated to the presence of homosexual men in the priesthood over the period of abuse.

    The John Jay Report in 2011 denied that that was the case because they said that the trend of abuse did not correspond with the trend of homosexual men in the priesthood. So that abuse was highest in the mid-1970s. But the reports of homosexual activity in the seminaries did not increase until the 1980s. So they argued that since by the time we were aware that they had these kinds of lurid homosexual cultures and homosocial activities in the Catholic seminaries, the abuse was already declining so it couldn’t have had anything to do with that activity or with the presence of homosexuals. And so I critically examine that thesis. I really don’t have a general criticism of the John Jay study at all. In fact, I have a lot of appreciation and admiration for that study.

    But for that particular point, I point out that the percent of homosexual men who are ordained in any year or the presence of homosexual activity in seminaries can’t relate very strongly to the percent of homosexual priest in priesthood. Because each year we ordain a relatively small proportion of new priests. It’s about 1%. So even if all of that 1% were homosexual, it doesn’t affect the percent of homosexual men and the priesthood very much at all. What we have to do is to look at what percentage of men were of a homosexual orientation in the entire presbyterate in any given year in order to see if that is correlated with the incidents of abuse — and even more importantly to see if that’s correlated with the percent of victims who were male in any year. And so that’s what I do in this report.

    I use data from a survey that was done in 2002 that measured the sexual orientation of Catholic priests and used a modified Kinsey scale, which in this case was a five-point scale, measuring from a completely homosexual orientation to completely heterosexual orientation and then categories in between; and also ask about year of ordination and the year of birth. And so from that, I’m able to compute what percentage of priests reported a homosexual orientation in any given year, going back to the 1950s. And when I overlay that trend with the trend and abuse, it’s almost a perfect correlation. The correlation is 0.98. A perfect correlation is 1.0. So it’s as close an association as you can get.

    In the 1950s, about 3% of priests were of a homosexual orientation, by their own reports. By the 1980s, that had risen to over 16%. So we have sort of a fivefold increase in the percentage of priests who are homosexual, in a pretty straight line from the 1950s through the 1980s. And we have a very similar increase in abuse incidents over that same period, and we don’t know the sexual orientation of any particular abuser. So we’re inferring from the association of those two correlations that there’s some influence of one on the other. So my conclusion has to be the opposite of that of the John Jay Report.

    It’s almost axiomatic among a number of very prominent figures in the Church that there is no correlation, and they cite the John Jay Report. And then we can add to that anyone who tries to investigate that type of a correlation is often accused of either scapegoating homosexual priests or of outright homophobia. What is your response to that?

    I’ve been called homophobic and hateful before for studying these kinds of things. I would say that if it’s a choice between being called homophobic and allowing more young boys to be abused, I would choose to be at risk for being called homophobic.

    The question is: Are we on the side of abusers? Are we on the side of victims? I think that the words of Our Lord about the importance of young children and the horribleness of those who would lead such young children astray in my mind outweigh anything that someone could call me. I’m not hateful toward anyone, to my knowledge. … I don’t think that these results in any way imply that homosexual persons are natively inclined or internally inclined to commit abuse at a greater rate than heterosexual persons.

    In fact, we know that that’s not the case. Most child abuse that happens in most settings is perpetrated by heterosexual males. It usually in families, and so I don’t think that in any way we can infer these results to something that generally happens with homosexual persons.

    I do look at the influence of these homosexual subcultures in seminaries, in encouraging and promoting abuse. And I find that it explains about half of the high correlation of the abuse with the percentage of homosexual priests. So something was going on beyond just mere sexual orientation to encourage this horrible immoral activity that has wrought such harm to so many victims.

    My experience in studying homosexuals has been this: that to people who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate.

    You mentioned in your research that there is this presence of a homosexual subculture in a lot of U.S. seminaries. And as you’ve also noted, that the John Jay Report was unable to identify specifically which seminaries were particular problem areas for that, what needs to be done in your view with respect to seminaries in order to address this problem, especially given the high likelihood — as we are seeing globally in places like Honduras and elsewhere — that this is an ongoing problem that has yet to be resolved?

    Well, the first thing that needs to be done is to stop the denial. We need to recognize that there’s a problem. And the idea that we want to keep from acknowledging that homosexual activity in seminaries or in the priesthood might be related to these kind of harms is really an important first step. The impulse that we don’t want to say anything that might stigmatize homosexual persons is an understandable one. But it has to be weighed against the potential for greater harm for these victims. How many times do we want to go around this block again and keep denying what is becoming increasingly obvious, and taking steps to address it?

    I do not know exactly what steps should be taken in seminaries. I’m sure there are people that have much better ideas than I would about that, but the first step I would recommend is to investigate thoroughly what seminaries, what professors, what persons, were complicit in promoting this kind of activity, because we don’t know.

    The John Jay Report let us know what diocese each offender was in, but did not let us know what seminary each offender had attended. Now, if we need just that piece of information, we could correlate abuse in the seminaries and find out which seminaries graduated priests that were engaged in less abuse; it seems to me that would be an important piece of information to know. And then we can begin to look at what the characteristics of those seminaries were; we might find that it’s related to particular professors and particular groups of persons, many of whom are still in the priesthood and still with us. It’d be great to know what the continuing effects of that activity are, but also to be able to identify places where it may still be going on.

    This report is being released just ahead of the U.S. bishops’ fall assembly, where they will be discussing issues related to the McCarrick scandal and other aspects of clergy sexual abuse. Is it your hope that the report’s findings will assist the bishops in better understanding the factors in play regarding clergy sexual abuse and in drafting new policies that can deal with them more effectively?

    I certainly hope that that will be the case. But not just the bishops. Any actor of goodwill that works to relieve the Church of this crime that is so harmful to our children, to our young people, is someone that I would like to help. And I hope that the information in this report is helpful to them from any point of view. If the bishops have a will and a mind to seriously address this issue, then I hope it’s helpful to them. But what we’re finding out is that if the bishops aren’t going to clean house, others are. We now have a federal investigation into some Catholic dioceses, and we’re likely to have many more. And I have to say that I welcome that.

    Like most Catholics today, the credibility of our bishops, to me, is in question on this issue. I hate to say that. I love the Church. I love my bishops. I think my own bishop, Cardinal [Donald] Wuerl, has been maliciously and unfairly characterized, and he’s done a lot better job on this issue than is generally known. But I think that, generally speaking, the bishops, as a group, cannot be trusted to solve this problem at this point, and that other folks, I think, might be more reliable and more clear about what to do.

    Matthew E. Bunson is a Register senior editor.
     
    AED, Tanker and HeavenlyHosts like this.
  16. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Good article
    Not sure I agree with Father Sullins about Cardinal Wuerl, though.
     
    Carol55 likes this.
  17. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    "To people who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate".

    That's a keeper.
     
  18. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Maranatha

    Abuse of Papal Power can be Disobeyed:
    Is Cdl.Parolin the Puppet-Master behind the Pope's Deal to Betray the Chinese Catholics or Does Francis have "No Faith"?

    Saturday, November 03, 2018
    http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-cdlparolin-puppet-master-behind.html

    Cardinal Joseph Zen believes that Cardinal Pietro Parolin is the puppet-master behind Pope Francis's deal to betray the underground Chinese Catholics to the Chinese Communist regime.

    On November 2, Vatican expert Marco Tosatti reported that Cardinal Joseph Zen said:

    "[T]he 'Interim Agreement' signed last September between the Holy See and the Chinese government allow a meeting between the two Churches... It does not make sense... It is a secret agreement of which only three elements are known for the time being. Everything is controlled by Parolin [Secretary of State, ed.], The Pope does not understand anything. Parolin does not tell the whole truth to Pope Francis! Parolin knows the reality of the situation of Chinese Catholics, but does not tell the whole truth to the Pope. He has no faith!... He wants a diplomatic agreement with China."
    (translated)

    Communist expert Robert Royal on EWTN's World Over has said that the Chinese government is a totalitarian regime that doesn't respect truth, religious rights and most of all human life.

    It is evil and totally godless.

    Human life for them is cheap. People are killed and tortured at the whim of the regime.

    Do Parolin and Francis believe that the underground Chinese Catholics are worthless things that they can cause suffering for to play at the so-called game of "diplomacy"?

    If the Pope is actively collaborating with Parolin, with full understanding, in the totalitarian Chinese Communist deal, then he "has no faith" as Cardinal Zen said of Parolin. Francis said of the China deal:

    "I think of the resistance, the Catholics who have suffered. It's true. And they will suffer..."

    "... I signed the [China deal] agreement," Pope Francis stated. "I am responsible."

    (Catholic Herald, "Pope Francis takes responsibility for China Deal," September 26,2018)

    The betrayal of the Chinese Church can thus be called the Francis/Parolin deal.

    The Francis/Parolin deal is a abuse of papal power which can be disobeyed in good conscience as shown by the saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste.

    In 1253, Bishop Grosseteste disobeyed Pope lnnocent IV who ordered that a benefice within his jurisdiction be given to the papal nephew. Benefices were a form of financial exploitation given to prelates who didn't reside in the diocese and never saw their flock so souls were lost for lack of true shepherding or pastoral care.

    Grosseteste said that benefices have only one end: "the salvation of souls." Exploitative use of benefices was a abuse of papal power so he disobeyed Pope Innocent IV.

    Innocent reportedly raged in anger, but his advisors told him to back down because all of Christendom knew Bishop Grosseteste was "one of the most learned men" of the age and a saintly bishop.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Grosseteste:

    "Bishop of Lincoln and one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages... That he opposed... abuses of the papal administration is certain, but a study of his letters and writings... destroy the myth that he disputed the plena potestas of the popes."
    (Catholic Encyclopedia, new advent.org, "Robert Grosseteste")

    If a pope could be disobeyed by "one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages" for the lost of souls due to benefices then there is no doubt that the Francis/Parolin betrayal of the Chinese Church to the totalitarian Communist regime which will result in the loss souls must be disobeyed.

    Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.





     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
    AED, DeGaulle and jerry like this.
  19. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria

    HH, I think that many clergy who reported to Cardinal Wuerl were probably not privy to many things in his regard. Father Sullins may be one of those clergy who was not privy to what occurred in regard to Cardinal McCarrick/Cardinal Wuerl.

    ***

    Here is an new interview of Michael Voris in which he discusses Archbishop Vigano, Cardinal McCarrick and Cardinal Wuerl along with the Youth Synod, etc.


    In the above video Michael Voris touches upon the subject of the following article which reminds me of an alleged prophecy from Bruno Cornacchiola:

    [...] "To love everyone does not mean keeping a sentimental attitude".

    This little prophecy resonated with me and that is why I have not forgotten it. I thought of it on a more personal level but now I see that it possibly has a much greater meaning for our times. If you are interested, it was posted here #10 when we were discussing the alleged prophecies of Our Lady of Revelation.

    Here is the article that I am referring to above,

    A Church drowning in sentimentalism
    Faith and reason are under siege from an idolatry of feelings.

    October 29, 2018 | Dr. Samuel Gregg | https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/10/29/a-church-drowning-in-sentimentalism/
    [​IMG]
    (Image: Matt Botsford | Unsplash.com)

    Whenever I teach graduate seminars, I lay down one rule for the participants. While they’re free to say what they think, they cannot start any sentence with the words “I feel . . .” or ask a question which begins “Don’t you feel . . .?” Quizzical expressions immediately appear on some students’ faces. Then I inform them I couldn’t care less what they feel about the subject-matter.

    At that point, there’s at least one gasp of astonishment. But before anyone can even think “trigger,” I say, “Perhaps you’re wondering why I’m not interested in your feelings about our topic. Well, I want to know what you think about the subject. We’re not here to emote to each other. We’re here to reason critically together.”

    The puzzled looks disappear. Students, it turns out, grasp that reasoned discussion can’t be about a mutual venting of feelings. And that’s as true for the Church as for graduates.

    Catholicism has always attached high value to reason. By reason, I don’t just mean the sciences which give us access to nature’s secrets. I also mean the reason that enables us to know how to use this information rightly; the principles of logic which tell us that 2 times 2 can never equal 5; our unique capacity to know moral truth; and the rationality which helps us understand and explain Revelation.

    Such is Catholicism’s regard for reason that this emphasis has occasionally collapsed into hyper-rationalism, such as the type which Thomas More and John Fisher thought characterized much scholastic theology in the twenty years preceding the Reformation. Hyper-rationalism isn’t, however, the problem facing Christianity in Western countries today. We face the opposite challenge. I’ll call it Affectus per solam.

    “By Feelings Alone” captures much of the present atmosphere within the Church throughout the West. It impacts how some Catholics view not only the world but the faith itself. At the core of this widespread sentimentalism is an exaltation of strongly-felt feelings, a deprecation of reason, and the subsequent infantilization of Christian faith.

    So what are symptoms of Affectus per solam? One is the widespread use of language in everyday preaching and teaching that’s more characteristic of therapy than words used by Christ and his Apostles. Words like “sin” thus fade and are replaced by “pains,” “regrets” or “sad mistakes.”

    Sentimentalism likewise rears its head whenever those who offer reasoned defenses of Catholic sexual or medical ethics are told that their positions are “hurtful” or “judgmental.” Truth, it seems, shouldn’t be articulated, even gently, if it might hurt someone’s feelings. If that was true, Jesus should have refrained from telling the Samaritan woman the facts about her marital history.

    Affectus per solam also blinds us to the truth that there is—as affirmed by Christ Himself—a place called Hell for those who die unrepentant. Sentimentalism simply avoids the subject. Hell isn’t a topic to be taken lightly, but ask yourself this question: When was the last time you heard the possibility that any of us could end up eternally separated from God mentioned at Mass?

    Above all, sentimentalism reveals itself in certain presentations of Jesus Christ. The Christ whose hard teachings shocked his own followers and who refused any concession to sin whenever he spoke of love somehow collapses into a pleasant liberal rabbi. This harmless Jesus never dares us to transform our lives by embracing the completeness of truth. Instead he recycles bromides like “everyone has their own truth,” “do whatever feels best,” “be true to yourself,” “embrace your story,” “who am I to judge,” etc. And never fear: this Jesus guarantees heaven, or whatever, for everyone.

    That isn’t, however, the Christ revealed in the Scriptures. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote in his 1991 book To Look on Christ:

    A Jesus who agrees with everything and everyone, a Jesus without his holy wrath, without the harshness of truth and true love is not the real Jesus as the Scripture shows but a miserable caricature. A conception of “gospel” in which the seriousness of God’s wrath is absent has nothing to do with the biblical Gospel.​

    The word “seriousness” is important here. The sentimentalism infecting much of the Church is all about diminishing the gravity and clarity of Christian faith. That’s especially true regarding the salvation of souls. The God fully revealed in Christ is merciful but he’s also just and clear in his expectations of us because he takes us seriously. Woe to us if we don’t return the compliment.
    continued...
     
    Joan J, Don_D, sunburst and 1 other person like this.
  20. Carol55

    Carol55 Ave Maria

    continued from above...

    So how did much of the Church end up sinking into a morass of sentimentalism? Here’s three primary causes.

    First, the Western world is drowning in sentimentalism. Like everyone else, Catholics are susceptible to the culture in which we live. If you want proof of Western Affectus per solam, just turn on your web-browser. You’ll soon notice the sheer emotivism pervading popular culture, media, politics, and universities. In this world, morality is about your commitment to particular causes. What matters is how “passionate” (note the language) you are about your commitment, and the cause’s degree of political correctness—not whether the cause itself is reasonable to support.

    Second, let’s consider how faith is understood by many Catholics today. For many, it appears to be a “feeling faith.” By that, I mean that Christian faith’s significance is judged primarily in terms of feeling what it does for me, my well-being, and my concerns. But guess what? Me, myself, and I aren’t the focus of Catholic faith.

    Catholicism is, after all, a historical faith. It involves us deciding that we trust those who witnessed to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who transmitted what they saw via written texts and unwritten traditions, and who, we’ve concluded, told the truth about what they saw. That includes the miracles and Resurrection attesting to Christ’s Divinity. Catholicism doesn’t view these as “stories.” To be a Catholic is to affirm that they really happened and that Christ instituted a Church whose responsibility is to preach this to the ends of the earth.

    Catholic faith can’t therefore be about me and my feelings. It’s about capital-T Truth. Human fulfilment and salvation consequently involves freely and constantly choosing to conform myself to that Truth. It’s not about subordinating the Truth to my emotions. In fact, if Catholicism isn’t about the Truth, what’s the point?

    Third, sentimentalism’s pervasiveness in the Church owes something to efforts to downgrade and distort natural law since Vatican II. Natural law reflection was in mixed shape throughout the Catholic world in the decades leading up to the 1960s. But it suffered an eclipse in much of the Church afterwards. That’s partly because natural law was integral to Humanae Vitae’s teaching. Many theologians subsequently decided that anything underpinning Humanae Vitae had to be emptied of substantive content.

    While natural law reasoning recovered in parts of the Church from the 1980s onwards, we’re paid a price for natural law’s marginalization. And the price is this: once you relegate reason to the periphery of religious faith, you start imagining that faith is somehow independent of reason; or that faith is somehow inherently hostile to reason; or that your religious convictions don’t require explanation to others. The end-result is decreasing concern for the reasonableness of faith. That’s a sure way to end up in the swamp of sentimentalism.

    Other reasons for sentimentalism’s traction in today’s Church could be mentioned: the disappearance of logic from educational curricula, excessive deference to (bad) psychology and (bad) sociology by some clerics formed in the 1970s, inclinations to view the Holy Spirit’s workings as something that could contradict Christ’s teachings, syrupy self-referential Disney-like liturgies, etc. It’s a long list.

    The solution isn’t to downgrade the importance of emotions like love and joy or anger and fear for people. We aren’t robots. Feelings are central aspects of our nature. Instead, human emotions need to be integrated into a coherent account of Christian faith, human reason, human action, and human flourishing—something undertaken with great skill by past figures like Aquinas and contemporary thinkers such as the late Servais Pinckaers. Then we need to live our lives accordingly.

    Escaping Affectus per solam won’t be easy. It’s simply part of the air we breathe in the West. Moreover, some of those most responsible today for forming people in the Catholic faith seem highly susceptible to sentimentalist ways. But unless we name and contest the unbridled emotivism presently compromising the Church’s witness to the Truth, we risk resigning ourselves to mere NGO-ism for the near future.

    That is to say, to true irrelevance.
    ***
    The next article provides some proof that some people are looking for a revolution to occur in the Church. Imho it also provides proof that the Church Militant, LifeSiteNews and the Lepanto Institute may be targeted to be unjustly shutdown in the future. I also believe that there is a lot of incorrect statements made in this article, https://www.ncronline.org/news/just...gainst-lgbt-catholics-create-toxic-atmosphere

    ***
    I posted the following on another thread yesterday but since I think it is so well done I am reposting the link to it here,

    Letters from the Synod-2018: The final letter
    by Xavier Rynne II | Monday, 29 Oct 2018 | http://catholicherald.co.uk/comment...d-2018-the-final-letter/#.W9ysIWn3wLA.twitter
    ***
    Edited to add:

    DeGaulle, I thought the same thing that you have stated above.

    I happen to watch the movie 55 Days at Peking with my husband yesterday and I recalled the story of Little Li which occurred during the Boxer Rebellion in China. I searched for her story to share it with my husband and I came across the following article https://zenit.org/articles/eucharistic-adoration-transforming-a-city/ which discusses the relationship between great graces being bestowed on the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska and the communities' long-standing custom of their practice of regular Eucharistic adoration.

    This reminded about something else Father Sullins stated in that article,

    "The John Jay Report let us know what diocese each offender was in, but did not let us know what seminary each offender had attended. Now, if we need just that piece of information, we could correlate abuse in the seminaries and find out which seminaries graduated priests that were engaged in less abuse; it seems to me that would be an important piece of information to know. And then we can begin to look at what the characteristics of those seminaries were; we might find that it’s related to particular professors and particular groups of persons, many of whom are still in the priesthood and still with us. It’d be great to know what the continuing effects of that activity are, but also to be able to identify places where it may still be going on."
    and the likelihood that an extended study of the clerical sexual abuse in the Church in the USA might show that there is a much lower percentage of seminarians from the seminary in Lincoln, Nebraska involved in this abuse. I also wondered if other similar seminaries across the country may also show similar results.

    I just found the following about the Diocese of Linclon which is also very interesting, https://liturgyguy.com/2016/04/30/why-arent-other-dioceses-looking-to-lincoln/ .
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
    Don_D, sunburst, DeGaulle and 2 others like this.

Share This Page