Bernadette I have had the same experience. It baffles me. What happened? And then i wonder why i was spared and thank God for giving me the Blessed Mother. I could have gone off the rails. And I did when young but I was rescued. We need to pray bnb hard for our apostate friends. Our Lady told Jscinta so many souls go to hell because there is no one to pray for them.
From the Catholic Herald report: "The service would support the task of launching diocesan, inter-diocesan or regional projects for formation and prevention as well as offer advice and support with canonical and civil cases and proceedings. The second proposal would be to choose one or more representatives from every diocese to take part in a regional or inter-regional course on safeguarding with the help of the Pontifical Gregorian University’s Center for Child Protection." The Pontifical Gregorian University is run by Jesuits. 'Nuff said.
The worm that dieth not is having a field day in the episcopacy. https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2...llaborated-on-alternative-sex-abuse-proposal/ Under the Metropolitan model, Cardinal McCarrick would have been investigating his friends and the men appointed on his recommendation would have been investigating him.
I have an idea. Why don't we let Cupich and Wuerl do the sex abuse inquiriy, since they know the most about it? This is how demonic it has become!!! Cupich and Wuerl collaborated on alternative sex abuse proposal By Ed Condon Washington D.C., Nov 16, 2018 / 06:56 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago and Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington collaborated extensively on a recently proposed policy for handling abuse allegations against bishops, CNA has learned. Cupich submitted the plan Tuesday to leaders of the U.S. bishops’ conference, proffering it as an alternative to a proposal that had been devised by conference officials and staffers. The conference’s proposed plan would have established an independent lay-led commission to investigate allegations against bishops. The Cupich-Wuerl plan would instead send allegations against bishops to be investigated by their metropolitan archbishops, along with archdiocesan review boards. Metropolitans themselves would be investigated by their senior suffragan bishops. Sources in Rome and Washington, DC told CNA that Wuerl and Cupich worked together on their alternative plan for weeks, and presented it to the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops before the U.S. bishops’ conference assembly in Baltimore. Cupich and Wuerl are both members of Congregation for Bishops. The Cupich-Wuerl plan was submitted to the U.S. bishops even after a Vatican directive was issued Monday barring U.S. bishops from voting on any abuse-related measures. The Vatican suspended USCCB policy-making on sexual abuse until after a February meeting involving the heads of bishops’ conferences from around the world. An official at the Congregation for Bishops told CNA on Thursday that the substance of the plan presented by Cupich at the Baltimore meeting is known in the congregation as “Wuerl’s plan.” The official would not confirm whether the congregation had received an advance copy of the document. Senior chancery officials in Washington described the plan presented Tuesday as a collaborative effort by the cardinals, telling CNA that Wuerl and Cupich first informed the Congregation for Bishops several weeks ago about their idea for the “metropolitan model” to handle complaints against a bishop, and suggested they had continued to discuss the plan with Congregation officials since that time. "It was a mutual effort," one Archdiocese of Washington official told CNA. The idea of amending USCCB policy so that allegations against a bishop would be handled by his metropolitan archbishop was first suggested by Wuerl publicly in August. While Cupich played an active role in conference sessions this week, and proposed the detailed plan for an alternative to the conference’s special commission, Wuerl did not make any public comment on the plan, which at least some in Rome consider to be “his,” and which he first suggested in public 3 months ago. Sources familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions in Baltimore told CNA that Wuerl chose to step back from the plan’s presentation, providing advice and counsel but not seeking to take public credit. A spokesman for Wuerl declined to comment on that decision. Several bishops in Baltimore told CNA that Cupich appeared to be positioning himself as an unofficial but influential policy-maker in the conference. His status would be strengthened if the plan he introduced in Baltimore gained support in Rome, they said, especially if it were favored over the plan proposed by conference officials. It is not clear to what extent Cupich considered how the manner in which he presented his plan could be interpreted. A spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Chicago told CNA that Cardinal Cupich was away, and could not be reached for comment. A source familiar with the drafting of the alternative proposal told CNA that Wuerl was not involved in the way the plan was presented in Baltimore, saying that Wuerl’s only concern was developing the best possible plan for tackling the sexual abuse crisis, and not “playing games” at the conference. Many American bishops arrived in Baltimore this week expecting to approve the proposed the independent commission, along with proposed standards for episcopal conduct. Bishops were stunned to discover Monday that they could not vote on the measures, following the last-minute instruction from the Congregation for Bishops, received Sunday night by conference president Cardinal Daniel DiNardo. An Archdiocese of Washington official suggested to CNA that the Congregation for Bishops’ last minute suspension of voting at the Baltimore meeting might have been because the conference’s independent commission proposal was not sent to Rome until Oct. 30. DiNardo, however, told a press conference Monday that while the draft document for the independent commission had been sent to Rome at the end of October, the USCCB had been in consistent contact with Vatican officials as the texts were developed. DiNardo said that “When we were in Rome [in October] we consulted with all of [the Vatican dicasteries]. I mean, [that’s what] we do.” “When I met with the Holy Father in October, the Holy Father was very positive in a general way - he had not seen everything yet - of the kind of action items we were looking to do.” Cupich spoke from the floor immediately after DiNardo’s announcement of the change Monday morning. The cardinal suggested that the bishops continue to discuss the proposed measures and take non-binding votes on them. He offered no indication at that time that he would introduce a completely different plan. By Tuesday afternoon, the Chicago cardinal rose to question the premise of the USCCB’s proposed independent commission, asking if it was a reflection of sound ecclesiology. Cupich suggested that the commission could be seen as a way of “outsourcing” difficult situations. Shortly thereafter, Cupich submitted to conference leaders a seemingly well-prepared and comprehensive “Supplement to the [USCCB] Essential Norms,” which outlined in detail the plan he had developed with Wuerl. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia said from the floor that the “metropolitan model” appeared to align closer with the Church’s hierarchical structure. “I really do favor the use of the metropolitan and the metropolitan review board for these cases… but that would require that the Holy See give metropolitan archbishops more authority than we have,” Chaput told the conference. Chaput told the bishop that the reason the USCCB executive committee opted to pursue the idea of an independent commission instead of developing a plan based around the metropolitan archbishop was because they did not think the “metropolitan model’ would have support in Rome. “When we discussed this at the executive committee level we, some people, thought it would be easier for us to develop this independent commission than to get the Church to change canon law,” he said. Sources close to the USCCB told CNA that if the executive committee had known the Vatican might support the “metropolitan model,” it might have been pursued earlier, with a proposal being circulated to members by the conference leadership. A spokesperson for the USCCB declined to comment on that possibility. Cupich had suggested during the meeting that either or both plans could be voted on in non-binding resolutions in order to give the Vatican a sense of the American episcopate’s desires. Ultimately, no vote was taken. Instead, as the Baltimore meeting ended, DiNardo agreed that Cupich’s plan would be developed alongside the independent commission plan, by a special task force consisting of former USCCB presidents Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, and Archbishop Wilton Gregory. DiNardo will have the option of presenting either or both possibilities when he and conference vice president Archbishop Jose Gomez attend the Vatican’s February meeting. USCCB spokespersons declined several times to comment on any role Cupich or Wuerl, members of the Congregation for Bishops, might have played in developing the congregation’s reaction to the special commission plan. Ed. note: This story was updated after publication to explain that metropolitans under investigation would be investigated by their senior suffragan bishops.
For anyone interested in watching all the session of the November US Bishops' Conference, here's a link to a video of Day 3 of the Morning session: Videos of the other sessions are available from the same source on YouTube (The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). Not having watched the videos, I don't know what was discussed at each session. At the beginning of the video I linked to, they seem to have been voting on candidates for various committees.
In all of this let us always remember, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail..." Safe in the Barque of Peter!
Wonderful video! Protestants make me much sadder than other breakaway groups for some reason. I think because many of them are so fervent and are avid seekers of the truth, yet they are so lost. In truth, there are not 30,000+ Protestant denominations as the numbers tell us. There are as many denominations as there are Protestants because they all have their own view of what the truth is. I think many of them are wonderful people and sadly much more devoted to their faith than the average Catholic. These divisions are such a sad thing
https://pjmedia.com/faith/noted-vat...-validity-of-pope-benedicts-xvis-resignation/ Noted Vatican Theologian Calls for Examination of Validity of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s Resignation By Debra Heine November 16, 2018 chat 152 comments Msgr. Nicola Bux. Image via Facebook. In an important interview that was overlooked last month, a Vatican theologian said that unless Pope Francis corrects himself and reaffirms Church teaching on morals, the faith, and the sacraments, "the apostasy will deepen and the de facto schism will widen." To address the current crisis, he suggested that an examination of the “juridical validity” of Pope Benedict’s XVI’s resignation was in order to “overcome problems that today seem insurmountable to us.” The theologian consultor to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was implying that further study of the situation could reveal that Francis is not and has never been a valid pope, but is, in fact, an antipope who could be removed from the papacy, thus nullifying his "insurmountable" errors. Msgr. Nicola Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI, made the remarkable comments in an in-depth interview with Vatican reporter Aldo Maria Valli, the same reporter who interviewed Archbishop Carlo Viganò before he accused the pope of covering up clerical sexual misconduct in a stunning eleven-page letter back in August.
Evidently, the Metropolitan solution is what the Pope wants and what will emerge from the special Synod in February. At this stage, nobody should be surprised that Pope Francis gave Cardinal DiNardo the impression that the US Bishops' proposals would be acceptable while secretly intending to scupper that proposal in favour of the one devised by Wuerl and Cupich. It's typical of this Pope that his last-minute intervention and Cupich's ready made alternative gives the impression that it's Cupich and not DiNardo who, in the Pope's opinion, is the real President of the USCCB. What I find troubling is that Archbishop Chaput seems to favour the Metropolitan model but that the US Bishops went for a different option because they thought the Vatican wouldn't want to be bothered changing Canon Law. Just as the Youth Synod was used to promote the homo-heresy agenda, this could be indicative that the Pope and his cabal intend to use the scandals as an excuse to do a complete overhaul of Canon law at the February Synod, incorporating all their heresies. These people have no sense of shame. Perhaps they are as Machiavellian as some have described them. I would have considered Archbishop Chaput a good Bishop. If the Metropolitan model is the best he could come up with, is he any better than the rest?
As I watched this whole video, it dawned on me that the Vatican coverup's of the homosexual clergy (cardinals, bishops and priests) may well be what takes the Vatican down. There is sufficient credible Catholic prophecy that speaks of the apparent collapse of the visible Church and it might well loose its prominence in the worlds eye through Pope Francis and the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who clearly, obviously and deliberately ignored the worlds demand for the release of documents that show the homosexual rings throughout the world and perhaps led by those in the USA. If it is bankrupting dioceses, like my own in Winona and the Minneapolis St. Paul then you know it could work its way right to the mother load at the Vatican. With Pope Francis not willing to be transparent and with him supporting Father Martin running around the country promoting homosexuality in his 'veiled' ways it could happen that this will take the Vatican down. Could this be the reason and the fulfillment of Pope Benedict (Father Ratzinger's) 1969 prophecy "that the Church will become very small, but very holy. It will loose all of its edifices....."? With 2/3rd of the USCCB voting to not have the Vatican release documents on Cardinal McCarrick, it shows clearly that the bishops in the USA are with the homosexual clergy crisis abuse gang.
Yes Fatima. I haves thought this too. The obfuscating and hiding and stonewalling I fear will bring in the civil authorities. These are crimes! And soon it will be shown to the whole world. I think it will be utterly devastating but purification is utterly devastating.
I am all for a "small, but very holy Church". Although I fear I may be in a very very small crowd of worshipers in my area when this happens.
I think sadly nothing will be done. All we can do is pray for what’s coming to mankind won’t be as bad for those of faith.
The civil authorities are closing in. I'm sure we all remember the Cardinal George quote{ although he said "What I said is not 'prophetic' but a way to force people to think outside of the usual categories that limit and sometimes poison both private and public discourse."} But perhaps it's more prophetic then he knew. "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
Members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops gather at the USCCB's annual fall meeting Nov. 13 in Baltimore. Nov. 15, 2018 Bishops Discuss McCarrick in Baltimore: ‘What Are People to Make of Our Silence?’ The bishops resumed their open-floor discussion on the recent sex-abuse scandals facing the Church in America on Wednesday. Ed Condon/CNA BALTIMORE — The bishops of the United States resumed their open-floor discussion on the recent sex-abuse scandals facing the Church in America Wednesday morning. In addition to debating the best means of institutionally responding to the crisis, the specific case of Archbishop Theodore McCarrick was raised by several speakers. Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, Tennessee, told the conference Nov. 14 that the allegations against McCarrick, and the scandal of his rise and fall, were not just affecting longtime Catholics. Many people in the process of entering the Church found themselves having the example of McCarrick thrown at them by friends and family as evidence that they were entering an institution in crisis. Bishop Stika said McCarrick, and the letters of former nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, were serving as “ammunition” to discourage people from entering the Church and that many Catholics felt that bishops were only responding to the sex-abuse crisis when they were “forced to” by the media. Several bishops spoke in favor of the USCCB acting as a body to speak out about McCarrick. Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth, Texas, told the conference hall that “we end where we begin.” “So much of the outrage we experience — and I think it’s a rightful outrage — is prompted by the injustice that our people have experienced at the hands of predators, at the treatment of our seminarians and our priests who were entrusted to the care of former Cardinal McCarrick, a trust that was not only violated, but was ignored by others who were responsible for paying attention.” Bishop Olson observed that while Pope Francis had accepted McCarrick’s resignation from the College of Cardinals and sent him to a life of prayer and penance pending a canonical process, the USCCB had yet to respond as a body to the scandal caused by one of their own. “He is an emeritus [bishop of a U.S. diocese], and as such, he is supposed to be a welcome guest here. He is not welcome, and we should say it,” Bishop Olson said. He also questioned if the bishops’ reliance on structural and procedural reform was overshadowing their need to act with moral authority. “We have said the Holy See should let us get some new norms, get a process together. Do we use this process as a means of avoiding our pastoral responsibilities?” he asked, suggesting that the conference needed to condemn not just McCarrick’s alleged behavior, but also Archbishop Vigano’s call for the resignation of the Pope, which he called an attack on the Petrine office. Bishop Liam Cary of Baker, Oregon, also insisted that the conference needed to respond to the McCarrick scandal as a body, saying McCarrick had “grievously offended” not just his victims, but all Catholics, priests and bishops. By abusing seminarians “successively, over decades,” Bishop Cary said McCarrick had left a “shameful residue” on all the bishops, and that while other institutions had revoked honors previously bestowed on the former cardinal, the USCCB had taken no action. Bishop Cary cited the example of bodies like the U.S. Senate, which could pass resolutions to censure its members as one way they could respond, but insisted that some kind of action was urgently needed. “What are people to make of our silence?” he asked. “How do we lead our brother to the mercy of God if we leave unspoken the demands of his justice?” Bishop Cary echoed Bishop Olson’s concern that McCarrick was still technically qualified as a welcome participant at the conference. “If McCarrick were to come to this microphone, would he be allowed to speak?” Bishop Cary asked, noting that there was no open microphone for his victims. In addition to the specific problem of Archbishop McCarrick, the bishops also discussed how they could proceed more generally in light of the Holy See’s intervention to prevent them from voting to adopt the proposed “Standards for Episcopal Conduct” or to create an independent special commission to investigate allegations against bishops. Bishop Kevin Vann of Orange, California, summed up the dilemma facing the conference. “We cannot just sit back and do nothing,” he told the bishops. If a deliberative vote was not possible, he said, the bishops needed to at least take “some sort of consultative vote” to show that the American bishops were firmly resolved among themselves. Bishop Robert Christian, auxiliary bishop of San Francisco, expressed the frustrations of many bishops at the inability of the conference to act. He pointed out that as several scandals broke over the summer, “the leadership of this conference was blocked from either working in partnership with the Holy See or leaving it to us in the dioceses.” Bishop Christian said that he was concerned by the Holy See’s intervention. He observed that it could take months for the Vatican to produce a final resolution after the February meeting of the heads of the world’s bishops’ conferences in Rome. This could mean, he said, that the U.S. bishops could find it still “impossible” to act in March, or even June, of next year. “It is all the more important to vote today as if we were voting on a policy,” he said, so that both the faithful and the Holy See could see the clear mind of the bishops. Despite the support of many in the conference hall for the original proposal for an independent commission to receive and investigate allegations against bishops, a few bishops have suggested they would prefer to see a different system altogether. Bishop Gregory Hartmayer of Savannah, Georgia, proposed that Rome should instead be asked to consider amending canon law to give metropolitan archbishops an expanded role and authority for dealing with allegations against bishops in their province. His proposal was echoed by Bishop Robert Coerver of Lubbock, Texas. Bishop Hartmayer noted that it might be better for accusations against a bishop to be considered by “a jury of their peers,” since, he said, “no one understands a bishop so much as another bishop.” He also said that bishops owed each other the “courtesy” of listening “to one of our brothers who has misbehaved in some way.” While the majority of the comments from the floor were concerned with what direct action the conference could take, others were more reflective. Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond, Virginia, gave a long and clearly personal reflection on the pain experienced by priests and laity alike in his former diocese, Washington. Bishop Knestout said that he looked upon the current scandals on a continuum of previous crises, stretching back 50 years to the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, saying that the rejection by many clergy of that document, and the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life and sexuality, had caused “one long crisis of leadership and teaching” in the Church. Despite the clear and forceful calls by several bishops for some clear statement on the case of Archbishop McCarrick, when the bishops resumed their seats after breaking for lunch, they voted down a resolution to “encourage” the Holy See to release whatever documents it could on McCarrick. As they debated the minutiae of the resolution’s wording, the bishops found they could not even agree on the inclusion of the word “soon.” After the defeat of the proposal, one bishop remarked to CNA that “we cannot seem to speak clearly, even when we want to agree.” Ed Condon is the Washington editor for Catholic News Agency
A link to that interview has already been posted on the forum, possibly with this thread. Msgr. Bux, in the interview, seemed to be basing his called for an examination of the "juridical validity" of Pope Benedict's resignation on Pope Benedict's once a Pope, always a Pope inference in his statement of resignation, and Benedict's implication that he would be the praying Pope while Francis would be the Pope in practice. If memory serves me, Msgr. Bux said that Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone, not to Peter and Andrew. Did Msgr. Bux support others who raised the same issue at the time of the resignation? Probably not, and isn't it a little late to raise it now? The College of Cardinals were aware of Benedict's statement when they elected Pope Francis. The activities of the St. Gallen group and Pope Francis' collusion with them was not revealed until after Francis was elected. Would a majority of the Cardinal electors have voted for Francis had they known about the St. Gallen group and its plans to have him installed as Pope? I suppose we will never know the answer to that question, but there certainly should be an investigation into that group's activities prior to the Conclave.
Yes it is going dwon a rabbit hole. But I find it very interesting that people should be publically expressing such views.
