This edition of CF NEWS No.2245 posted at 1.05 pm on Sunday, August 5th, 2018


Vatican watch

Prayer intentions for August VIDEO    read more >>>
Müller : No obligation to follow Pope's green-left agenda    read more >>>
Catechism wording on capital punishment altered, calling it ‘inadmissible’ read more >>>

Humanae Vitae

Women in the Body o Christ and in Society    VIDEO    read more >>>

United Nations

The Yogyakarta Principles read more >>>


Mueller: To lead in Europe, Germany must recover moral strength read more >>>

News from around the world

HONDURAS Bishopsreply to accusations of homosexual network at seminary    read more >>>
UK Supreme Court: Families can decide to starve brain damaged patients to death
   read more >>>
UK Children aged five carrying out sex abuse seen on social media
   read more >>>
Shocking PA Grand Jury report
read more >>>
Bishop Scharfenberger's letter to clergy on abuse revelations
   read more >>>
USA Diocese releases names of over 70 priests accused of abuse read more >>>
USA Lay Catholics express 'righteous anger' over Church leaders' failure    read more >>>
USA McCarrick's secretary says Wuerl didn't know about abuse settlements
   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL Savonarola Voris
   VIDEO    read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL gloria.tv.news
   VIDEO    read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL Some jihad headlines of the week
   read more >>>
INTERNATIONAL The World Over with Raymond Arroyo
   VIDEO    read more >>>


Disestablishing secularism through re-establishing the university    VIDEO    read more >>>


25,000 Letters to Parliament    read more >>>


BBC champions ‘gender free’ child raising in new documentary   read more >>>

Comment from the internet

The Moment before the storm    read more >>>
Cardinal McCarrick and the last Novus Gasp
   read more >>>
Why do people have a problem with the Novus Ordo?
   read more >>>
Applying a 'Paradigm Shift' to Humanae Vitae would distort its meaning
   read more >>>
I don’t want to talk about it read more >>>
McCarrick: in the spirit of Francis read more >>>
#Sack the Synod read more >>>
They are everwhere now read more >>>
Cardinal Maradiaga: Enabler of Monsters read more >>> SAT1

Our Catholic Heritage

Site of the day : Ickburgh    read more >>>
Salve Regina
     VIDEO read more >>>


Pope Brnedict XVI   read more >>>

By courtesy of Canon 212




To TRANSLATE this bulletin,Click here and then enter the URL
http://www.cfnews.org.uk/CF_News 2245.htm

Recent editions

For last edition of CF News click here

EWTN live television coverage

For UK / Ireland click here
For Asia / Pacific click here
For Africa / Asia click here
























Vatican watch


Prayer intentions for August




[S&L] 2245.1a








No obligation to follow Pope's green-left agenda, says Cardinal Müller

CATHOLICS are not obliged to follow Pope Francis's green-left agenda in opposing fossil fuels and favouring agreements on environmental issues, Cardinal Gerhard Müller has told The Weekend Australian (July 27).

Müller is in Sydney to address the Australian Confraternity of Catholic Clergy conference. 'We are not a green party', he added,

'Environmental policy is nothing to do with faith and morals. Those issues are for politicians and for people to vote for the party they agree with.'

'Bishops are not scientists, environmental experts or politicians.' Müller recommended that Church leaders should concentrate on religion.

Müller explained that Francis and the bishops needed 'to provide the clearness, based on the word of God' to heal the 'schism' between the 'conservative' and the 'progressive' in the Church.

But instead Francis' priorities were social justice and the alleviation of poverty, he added.

Müller said many cardinals who will elect Francis' successor will face the problem of not knowing each other, because Francis has not called a general meeting of cardinals for four years.

The lack of such meetings appears to contradict the consultative style ostensibly favoured by Francis, who [allegedly] wants a 'synodal approach'.

Cardinal Mueller said Francis also listened to 'so-called friends but they were not always friends'.

[en.news] 2245.1

























Vatican draft alters Catechism wording on capital punishment, calling it ‘inadmissible’

Wolf in the Vatican. No Shepherds in Sight

EDWARD PENTIN reports for the National Catholic Register : 'The Vatican, on Thursday, altered the Catechism’s wording on the permissibility of the death penalty, which the Church teaches is legitimate in extreme cases, stating it is “inadmissible,” and its elimination will be sought.

A new draft of paragraph 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Aug. 2, after Pope Francis approved it in May.

STEVE SKOJEK comments for OnePeterFive : 'Just as the latest round of homosexual network and sex abuse allegations in the Church are reaching a fever pitch, Pope Francis – who has been eerily quiet of late – dropped a nuclear theological bomb into our midst. . .

As I have previously attempted to demonstrate, this is simply theologically wrong. There’s no way around that. But I wanted the opinion of an expert – which I am not – so I reached out this morning to a trustworthy theologian who is well versed in the finer distinctions of Magisterial authority and its limits. This was the response I received:

'The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the intrinsic morality of the death penalty is irreformable dogma.  

'To deny this or assert the contrary is formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this doctrine regardless of any changes to the Catechism.

'What does it mean to say that this is “formally heretical”?

1. Formal versus material heresy. This is a distinction pertaining to the objective status of doctrinal propositions. A heresy is any proposition opposed to any dogma. Two things are required for a doctrine to be dogma: (1) it must be contained in divine revelation and (2) it must be proposed as such by the Church (either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium). If both of these requirements are met, then the doctrine is a formal dogma, and the denial of such a dogma is a formal heresy. If a doctrine is contained in divine revelation but has not yet been proposed as such by the Church, then it can be called a “material dogma”. Such was the case with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the patristic and medieval periods. Material heresy is the denial of a material dogma.

2. Formal versus material heretic. This is a distinction pertaining to the subjective culpability of persons. A heretic is a person who believes or teaches heresy. A material heretic is a person who believes or teaches something which is objectively a heresy; a formal heretic is one who continues to do so obstinately after having been duly corrected.

'So in the case of the dogma of the intrinsic morality of the death penalty, the denial of this dogma is formally heretical, since it contradicts a doctrine which is contained in divine revelation and which has been proposed as such by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The person who denies this dogma is a material heretic simply in virtue of his denial; but he is not formally a heretic unless he persists in his denial after having been duly corrected'.

What is so absurd about this moment in the Church is that to simply reiterate Church teaching in the face of it being contradicted from the highest office is so dangerous for a theologian in full communion that I am compelled to protect this person’s identity.

I don’t know what to add to the above. We are way off the map at this point in rough and uncharted waters. I began arguing that the Galatians 2 moment had arrived back when Francis had given the green light for eugenic contraception in 2016. Things have only gotten worse since.

Bishops of the world, if you are orthodox and you care at all about the faith or the souls being lost due to the relentless barrage of scandal and error coming from Rome, you have a moral duty to correct this pope.

Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Brandmüller, Cardinal Müller, Bishop Schneider – your names come first to mind, but there are others. Hiding out and making oblique references to what his happening and condemning errors without discussing their source is not sufficient in the eyes of the faithful. The scandal of this pope is only compounded by the absolute lack of confrontation on the part of our bishops who will not rebuke this disaster by name, to the face, as St. Paul did to St. Peter in Galatians 2:11.

Dom Prosper Guéranger wrote that “[w]hen the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.”

Are you really going to force us to do this alone?


The Reversible Magisterium is no Magisterium

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA writes for Fatima Perspectives: ' Pope Francis has evidently decided that he can “reverse” the Church’s constant teaching on the admissibility of capital punishment, rooted in the words of Christ Himself to Pilate, the teaching of Saint Paul, and the pronouncements of popes and councils throughout Church history, as discussed here, in an article I wrote for Crisis magazine.

On August 2, the Vatican published an announcement that “The Supreme Pontiff Francis” (notice how the humble “Bishop of Rome” becomes “the Supreme Pontiff” whenever the need arises) has approved “the following new text of the n. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ordering its translation in the various languages and inserted in all editions of the mentioned Catechism.”

Here is the new text in full: 'The death penalty. 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

This purported “reversal” of all prior Church teaching is absurd on its face.

First of all, it reduces the constant teaching of the Magisterium that the death penalty is permissible for the gravest offenses, above all murder, to the phrase “was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes…”

Long considered? Considered by whom, exactly? The man on the street? The Encyclopedia Britannica? The results of a Gallup poll? There is no reference whatsoever to the Church’s bimillenial teaching, which is treated as if it never existed. There is only a single footnote to a lone address by Francis to “Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization…”

Secondly, the text offers no rationale for the “reversal” beyond mere assertions of contingent fact as opposed to universal moral principles:

an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes …

• a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state …

• “more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens…”

Are we expected to believe that the Magisterium lacked a full awareness of the human dignity of criminals before the arrival of Jorge Bergoglio from Buenos Aires?

And since when is human dignity inconsistent with a condign (fitting) punishment for a crime such as murder? On the contrary, a defense of human dignity might well require the death penalty. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, alluding to the revealed truth in the teaching of Saint Paul: “The use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder.”

Four centuries later, Ven. Pope Pius XII echoed this constant teaching: “Even when it is a question of someone condemned to death, the state does not dispose of an individual’s right to life. It is then the task of public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life, in expiation of his fault, after he has already deprived himself of the right to life by his crime.” (AAS, 1952, pp. 779 et. seq).

What does Francis mean by “a new understanding… of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state”? Absolutely nothing. This is empty verbiage camouflaging his personal opinion.

As for the allegation of “more effective systems of detention,” what does that have to do with the moral legitimacy of capital punishment for capital crimes, which involves just retribution and expiation of fault, not mere confinement for public safety? Moreover, many nations have completely inadequate “systems of detention,” so that pretext goes out the window.

And what of prisoners who kill fellow prisoners or prison guards even in the most modern “systems of detention”? That gaping hole in an already feeble rationale is not even addressed.

Based on literally nothing but what Francis thinks, the new text concludes: “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

No, “the Church” cannot suddenly teach the opposite of what she has always taught respecting capital punishment. Francis, and Francis alone, does.

Here we see yet again the wisdom of Father Gruner’s observation, based on reason and common sense, that the Magisterium cannot contradict itself and that any actual contradiction of what the Magisterium teaches cannot, for that very reason, belong to the Magisterium.

If it were otherwise, there would be no Magisterium at all but only an Oracle of Rome who would periodically announce “new teachings that contradict completely teachings that the Magisterium had taught since Apostolic Times…”

And by the way, when will Francis announce the absolute inadmissibility of abortion — a mass death penalty for the innocent — in keeping with the Church’s infallible moral teaching, and then declare in the Catechism that the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide”?

We know the answer to that question. The same Pope who calls for the worldwide abolition of capital punishment for the guilty has never called for the worldwide abolition of the murder of innocents in the womb, not even when it is about to be legalized in once Catholic Ireland.

Francis has plainly exceeded his authority in a way the Church has never seen before. And this in the very midst of the worst corruption of morals the Catholic hierarchy has ever exhibited.

Such is the ever-worsening crisis of faith and discipline it now seems only Heaven can resolve with the most dramatic of interventions.

“Whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine you shall find to have been furtively introduced” is “permitted as a trial”.

‘When confusing things happen that leave people upset, legitimately, I have often written that that we should stay calm. This is for several reasons

1 Each horrid thing that clerics do or strange thing they say is further proof that this is God’s Church. Only He keeps it going. If it depended on us, we’d be finished in no time. God is trustworthy and the Church is indefectible. Good to know!

2 Every Pope’s pontificate, or bishop’s or priest’s mandate are the merest blips in the long history of salvation which is directed, not by us, but, again, by God. We are offered ever grace we need to get though any blip, whatsoever.

3 Some Councils and Popes were not nearly as important as others. In the long term, we will see how things shake out. Perspective!

4 When something weird or confusing comes our ways, we have an opportunity to crack open our trustworthy books and study. Thus, we wind up being better educated and better prepared to give reasons for the faith that is in us. That’s a good thing.

Hence, calm down.

That said, on that last note, putting on my old patristiblogger cap, I’ve been reviewing the great adage of Vincent of Lérins (+c.445) about authenticity of doctrine: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est … what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all’ (Commonitorium 2.3). This doesn’t preclude development of doctrine. However, authentic development of doctrine has been assessed by another adage, which has been absorbed by the Church’s Magisterium as its own, namely, a change in the expression of doctrine or its development must be eodem sensu eademque sententia…with the same sense and with the same meaning. Vatican I claims this principle, also from Vincent’s Commonitorium, 23, 3, in Dei Filius. It is pretty much unavoidable. If something changes in such a way that is it not like what it was before, it is not authentic doctrine. Further, it has become something that, in the Church at least, is not believed everywhere, always and by all the faithful. “The faithful” is a key, by the way. To have the sense of the faithful, you have to be faithful.

This adage, eodem sensu eademque sententia, has become a central, structural support in the Church’s Magisterium. That’s why, for example, Pius IX rested on it when infallibly teaching in Ineffabilis Deus in 1854 the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. St Pius X uses the concept in his anti-modernist Pascendi dominici gregis. This phrase was in the oath that all clergy had to take until 1967. John XXIII used the phrase in his opening speech Gaudet Mater Ecclesia at the opening of Vatican II. John Paul II in his great encyclical Veritatis splendor 53 cites it. Benedict XVI cited it, when quoting John XXIII, in his monumentally important address to the Roman Curia in 2005.

Moreover, this passage from Vincent of Lerin is not unknown to clergy today because it must be read each year in the modern Liturgy of the Hours on Friday of the 27th Week of Ordinary Time. No excuse is possible.

Bl John Henry Newman wrote a treatise on the development of doctrine which explains the conditions and the parameters of authentic development. Newman identified seven “notes” or characteristics of authentic development, as opposed to doctrinal corruptions. The first, and the most important, is unity of type or the external expression of an idea. Does the main idea change or remain unchanged if the manner of expression changes? If the content remains, then the expression is a genuine development of doctrine rather than a corruption. For example, a bird doesn’t have much resemblance to an egg, but the bird is the proper development of the egg, not its corruption. An acorn rightly and legitimate changes into a oak tree, not a palm tree.

As you can guess, legitimate development of doctrine does not include direct contradiction of what has always been taught by the Church. It develops. It doesn’t evolve into something it wasn’t.

Tracking back to Vincent of Lérins I found a sobering and consoling passage.
Allow me a slight editing choice from “he” to “you”… which doesn’t change the sense at all!

“….he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who set light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; [Here start reading aloud…] but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine you shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all or contrary to that of all the saints, this, you will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, ‘There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you:’ as though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not forthwith rooted up by God, namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest; that is, that it may be apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the Catholic faith.” Commonitorium 20.48

Opportunity, dear readers. Opportunity!


LGBT ‘Catholic’ groups: If the Pope can reverse Church
teaching on death penalty, why not homosexuality?

DOROTHY CUMMINGS McCLEAN reports for LifeSiteNews
– Pro-homosexual dissident 'Catholic' groups see in Pope Francis’ ‘changing’ of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty the hope that the Church will one day also change its teaching against homosexuality.

New Ways Ministry called the change in the Catechism proof that "Church teaching can change."

"It’s important for Catholic advocates for LGBT equality to take note of this change because for decades Catholic opponents of LGBT equality argued that it is impossible to change church teaching. They often pointed to the fact that condemnations of same-sex relationships were inscribed in the Catechism, and so were not open for discussion or change. Yet, the teaching on the death penalty is in the Catechism, too, and, in fact, to make this change in teaching, it was the text of the Catechism that Francis changed," the group stated on its website.

New Ways Ministry, which works to "promote the acceptance of LGBT people," said that Pope Francis' move will help advance "LGBT equality" in a number of ways.

"First, we now have a clear, explicit contemporary example of church teaching changing, and also a look into how it can be done: with a papal change to the Catechism," it stated.

"Second, we can see that the process that brought about this change has been decades of theological debate and discussion, and not just a papal whim. That means the theological and even ecclesial discussions and debates right now about LGBT people have great potential to shape future changes in church teaching in regard to those topics," it added.

The pro-gay group was not the only one to see the significance of Pope Francis' rewrite of the Catechism.

In a post that appeared yesterday on Twitter, Lexington-based “Fortunate Families” wrote:

The church cannot change its teaching. That is what so many others say about other topics, for example regarding LGBTQ persons. But doctrine develops. Today’s news is a sterling example.

"The idea first floated by [the] Pope on Catechism’s 25th anniversary last fall to signify development of doctrine,” the tweet continued, “rescript issued today sees Francis issue edit of the 1994 official text, now deeming capital punishment ‘inadmissible’-- the new formulation.”

“Development of doctrine”, legitimately used to describe how the Catholic Church refines and expands, but never undermines or rejects, what was taught earlier, has now been interpreted by some to mean the erasure of settled Church teaching.

Critics say Pope Francis attempted to do that yesterday when he promulgated a new teaching concerning the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, saying that it was “inadmissible.” The perennial teaching of the Church, based on Scripture and unanimously accepted by the Church Fathers and every pope until Francis, is that legitimate civil authority may impose the death penalty on a malefactor. Although both Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI were strongly opposed to capital punishment--and John Paul’s Catechism strongly circumscribed it--neither pope denied this principle.

Pope Francis’ innovation has already become a club for American liberals to beat conservatives with. Jane Fleming Kleeb, Chair of the Democratic Party in Nebraska, has tweeted “Let's be clear Nebraskans, @GovRicketts is going against the teachings of the church. We can change leaders by voting different on Nov. 6--Democrats are against the death penalty.”

Fortunate Families, founded in 1992 by Mary Ellen and Casey Lopata, the Catholic parents of a same-sex attracted man, is a group of Catholic religious and laypeople who dissent on authentic Church teaching regarding sexuality and marriage. From 2010 until this July Fortunate Families was part of a coalition with Call to Action, the banned Dignity, and the censured New Ways ministry.

Astonishingly, since November 2017 Bishop John Stowe, OFM of Lexington has served as the dissident group’s “ecclesial advisor”. Stowe is one of the five bishops who have endorsed Fr. James Martin’s pro-LGBT book Building a Bridge. The bishop was appointed to the Lexington diocese by Pope Francis in 2015.

Fortunate Families was last in the news when a Lexington Catholic church stretched an LGBT flag across its front lawn. The first executive director of the group, Stan “JR” Zerkowski, is a parishioner at St. Paul’s parish, and told media that he hoped the banner got wide publicity.

“This is a church that is open to all people and I hope this sign gets that across,” he said in the TV report. “I don’t think a Catholic Church has ever had a sign like this before in front of it during Pride Week or any other time. However, in other parts of the country we see this regularly.”

The banner read “LBGTQ+ Catholic /Family, Friends & Allies/all are welcome”, insinuating that at other Catholic churches Catholics who experience same-sex desires or suffer from gender dysphoria are barred from the worship of God.

Former homosexual Joseph Sciambra retweeted the group’s Twitter message, saying “Bishop Stowe’s ‘Fortunate Families’ believe that the [Catechism of the Catholic Church] will also ‘change’ in terms of homosexuality. FF operatives are embedded within several dioceses around the US.”

Sciambra, a survivor of the San Francisco 1990s “gay scene”, is dedicated to helping people with same-sex attractions avoid being trapped in what he says is a dangerous way of life.


Scuttle the Soros Magisterium: Stop the Synod

ELIZABETH YORE writes for The Remnant : 'It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Francis announced that the death penalty is inadmissible in all cases. The New York Times noted that “abolishing the death penalty has long been one of his top priorities, along with saving the environment and caring for immigrants and refugees.” Francis understands that abolishing the death penalty remains a cherished tenet of his patron, George Soros. Whatever George Soros wants, Jorge Bergoglio delivers.

For five insufferably long years, Bergoglio responded to the ideological promptings of his mentor, George Soros. This papacy shamelessly promotes Soros’ Open Society Global Wish list in papal Exhortations, papal pronouncements, diplomatic maneuvers, and now, Church teaching. Francis doles out Soros dogma from the Chair of Peter, like indulgences in the time of Luther.

The dye was cast in the Tiber when Bergoglio stepped out on the loggia with his modernist St. Gallen mafia cabal. Francis went right to work—on the global agenda of George Soros.

At the start, Soros graciously dispatched reinforcements to carry out the battle plan:

In the first years of his reign, Francis surrounded himself with the loyal Soros army of ideologues, like Jeffrey Sachs, Joe Stiglitz, and Emma Bonino, to mention just a few. Francis opened up the vast Vatican resources and global papal platform to promote the Soros, UN, New World Order environmental agenda, reflected in Laudato Si.

• Task Completed

Next up was the papal endorsement of the Paris Climate Treaty.

• Task Completed.

Next up was the Cuba detente using Vatican backdoor diplomatic channels.

• Task Completed.

Next up was Soros’ destruction of Europe through papal promotion of mass Muslim migration.

• Task Completed.

The loyal and obedient Soros papal servant carried out his globalist duties with sublime mercy and efficiency.

Now, Francis must address the really tough stuff of undoing and ditching dogma to ensure the realization of the one world religion which tops the Soros global check list.

Francis intends on undoing and rewriting 2000 years of Magisterium, Church Teaching, and the Catholic Catechism to please his master, George Soros.

The clever Bergoglio starts first with the easiest dogma to overturn, the teaching on the death penalty. Shrewdly, Francis announces his reversal on Church dogma on the death penalty while the Catholic world is distracted by the clergy sex abuse crisis, hoping that few will have the energy or attention to object to this papal Magisterium redo.

• Task Completed

Time is running short for the 81-year-old Bergoglio. Look for the Soros reform to pick up the pace behind the Vatican walls. Next up, the October Synod on Young People in Rome which will serve as the papal platform to further justify and implement the demands of George Soros and his global elites.

The Vatican homosexual agenda and verbal grooming tactics are evident in the synodal working document, the Instrumentum Laboris, heavily cloaked in the psycho babble of accompaniment and dialogue. One sentence captures the covert manipulation employed by Francis, Synodal Cardinals Farrell and Baldisseri.

“Sociological studies show that many young Catholics do not follow Church teachings on sexual morals. No Bishop Conference gives solutions or prescriptions, but many believe that the sexual question must be discussed in a more open and unbiased way.” §53 IL

Do you see the not-so-subtle ideological shift underway in this modernist manifesto? The kids want us to be more open and unbiased. Sounds like the Instrumentum is suggesting that Catholic teaching makes us haters.

Francis and his bishops already skewered the youth survey to serve their leftist agenda. Can you hear him propound from the Papal Chair that the youth want us to be more merciful, open, and engaged in dialogue? We must accompany the youth on their journey.

The Church of Thomas Aquinas has devolved into the prissy and superficial dialogue of I’m OK, you’re OK.

Catch Elizabeth Yore's regular column in The Remnant Newspaper. SUBSCRIBE today!

Rest assured, Francis will ascribe to the youth, as the primary justification to change Church teaching on homosexuality. This is crass theological exploitation under the guise of some phony synodal survey. Francis operates in the political and secular world, using focus groups, youtube videos and polling to redefine dogma.

How ironic that this papacy presently awash in homosexual sex abuse scandals is so skilled at exploiting youth and diverting attention. How ironic that in the midst of a homosexual clerical scandal of epic proportions, the Synod on the Youth will attempt to advance a homosexual agenda.

Make no mistake: As the hierarchy exploited and abused the bodies of Catholic youth, they are now grooming the youth in this upcoming Synod as rationalization and justification to “modernize” and embed the radical homosexual ideology by incorporating it into Church dogma. The Synodal Bishops will argue that we must listen to the youth and accompany them as they explore a more open and merciful inclusion of homosexuality. After all, the youth are open, the adults are not.

The Synod on the Youth will unveil more sex changes than Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. We’ve seen the Francis synodal manipulation before with the 2014-15 Synods on the Family and his sneaky footnote sleight of hand in Amoris Laetitia. The Synodal Leaders, Cardinals Farrell and Baldisseri are tasked to ensure the completion of the Soros globalists’ gender-bending worldly ambitions in the final Synodal document.

Cardinals Baldisseri and Farrell argue for a modernizing of Church teaching in the hopes that homosexual youth will be “close” to the Church. Not a very comforting thought in the dark days of McCarrick:

“Some LGBT youths, through various contributions that were received by the General Secretariat of the Synod, wish to benefit from greater closeness and experience greater care by the Church, while some Bishop Conferences ask themselves what to suggest to young people who decide to create homosexual instead of heterosexual couples and, above all, would like to be close to the Church.” §197 IL

The Synod will exploit the inexperience and innocence of the youth to promote the next radical Soros tenet of global homosexual advocacy. As they shamelessly exploited youth in sacristies and seminaries, the Vatican will brazenly take advantage and groom the youth on the Synodal stage for Francis’ merciful embrace of the homosexual political agenda. Who am I to judge gets embedded into dogma.

The promotion of homosexual strategy abounds in the trite and superficial 34,000 word Instrumentum Laboris which reads like ramblings from a Hollywood New Age priestess. Don’t be fooled by its dense nothingness. It’s very dangerous.

Ted McCarrick would be pleased.

Stop the Synod on the Youth before its too late.

[Elizabeth Yore is an attorney specializing in international child protection. She has investigate numerous clergy abuse sex cases].


[1P5/FP /wdtprs/LSN/Remnant] 2245.1a






















Humanae Vitae


Women in the Body of Christ and in Society




[Franciscan University of Steubenville] 2245.2




















United Nations


UN logo



Wicked anti-family LGBT document has risen again. Help stop the Yogyakarta Principles

AUSTIN RUSE, President/C-Fam, Publisher/Friday Fax writes : 'I have rarely been as angry and frightened as I am right now. I am frightened for our children, yours and mine, and all the children in the world. And I’m frightened for our Church.

The richest and most powerful bodies in the world have banded together to promote a radical homosexual / transgender document called the Yogyakarta Principles which can only be described as from the very pits of hell.

The Yogyakarta Principles were drafted by so-called human rights activists including a disgraced former Catholic priest named Michael O’Flaherty. O’Flaherty was the man behind the recent and sadly successful referendum to force gay “marriage” on Ireland.

It is a wicked document that seeks to impose the gay ideology on the whole world. The Yogyakarta Principles declares that all forms of human sexuality are a human right.

That’s right, they say anything anyone wants to do with anyone else is now protected by international law.

I cannot tell you the kinds of sexual perversities this would apply to. All manner of sexual sickness would be a human right to be protected by governments and courts. There is even a renewed effort to push acceptance for pedophilia, adults having sexual relations with children. Even this would be protected by the Yogyakarta Principles.

As if the Yogyakarta Principles could get any worse, the document says that these new so-called rights supersede any claims of religious freedom.

What this means is the teachings of the Church on human sexuality are in fact a human rights violation.
Holy Mother Church teaches there is only one sexual orientation and that is between men and women in Holy Matrimony and for the purposes of joining with the Father in creating new souls for Him!

This teaching, handed to us by God Himself, would be a human rights violation according to this dangerous new document. The document orders national governments to enforce these new rules.

The document would require that these new ideas be forced upon our precious children in school starting at the age of five! My girls are 13 and 9 years old. I shudder at the thought that these sick ideas would be forced upon them in school.

This is recruitment and grooming.

In a few weeks, the UN General Assembly will meet and upon that cold battle ground we will meet the Yogyakarta Principles and powerful homosexual activists.

Please know, we know how to fight this fight. We know how to fight the rich and powerful homosexual lobby.
But we need your help. We need your prayers and we need your financial assistance.

In the coming weeks, you can help with the following:

• Rent… Our office near the UN is THE hub of resistance during the UN General Assembly. Pro-family activists from around the world work from our office. Foreign diplomats seek refuge there. It is a very tiny space, but a very expensive one.

•Transportation… We bring in experts from around the world to help foreign diplomats understand the evil they are fighting. They cannot pay for themselves. We must. And this is crucial.

•Getting the message out… It is essential that we tell the world about this fight as it happens. Why? So that people on the ground around the world can contact their governments and encourage them to do the right thing.
We can stop them. I promise you we will stop them or will die trying. But we cannot do this without your prayers and your sacrificial financial assistance!

In order to fight the sexual revolutionaries and to stop the Yogyakarta Principles, I ask you to consider a sacrificial gift right now.

I also ask you to pray for me and my team by name: Susan Yoshihara, Lisa Correnti, Stefano Gennarini, and Rebecca Oas. They will be under demonic attack and they need the protection of Our Lord and Lady. Call down Heaven upon their heads.

[C-FAM] 2245.UN1





























Cardinal Mueller: To lead in Europe, Germany must recover moral strength

WHILE Germany has the potential to be a major European leader, the Church in the country must take a strong stand to insist on moral direction as well, said Cardinal Gerhard Mueller in a recent interview.

'Germany is the leading country economically but we need leadership also in the moral-ethical orientation,' said the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He warned that 'most of the European leaders and people in authority are too much linked with certain ideologies,' such as support for abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage. 'They think this is the progress of humanity but it is a regression.'

Mueller spoke to Catholic Outlook, the diocesan newspaper of Parramatta, Australia during a recent trip to the country to give a talk to a group of priests.

In the interview, published July 23, Cardinal Mueller responded to a question about the German bishops' conference pushing to allow Protestant spouses of Catholics to receive the Eucharist in some cases.

'Unfortunately, our bishops are thinking more in categories of politics and power and not in this line of the New Evangelization,' Mueller said.

'Intercommunion is not possible, absolutely, objectively, is not possible because the Communion is the sacramental representation of the communion in the Faith,' he said. 'If you don't have full communion in the Faith, it's not possible to have full communion in the sacramental expression, especially in the Eucharist.'

'[W]e cannot say it is all the same it is enough to have a religious feeling, or sentiment that we are belonging together,' he said. 'That is very good but it's not enough for the sacramental communion and therefore I hope the German Bishops will find the way back to more a religious and spiritual understanding of the Church and to respect also the fundamentals of the Catholic Faith, that cannot be changed.'

Cardinal Mueller also spoke about the relationship between Church and state. Government has a proper role and limitations, he said, cautioning that not all legal actions are moral.

'The power of the state must be responsible to the transcendent, to the higher law and reality,' he said.

Government's power is not absolute, but must adhere to natural moral law, which is universal, he said. Efforts to violate this natural moral law - for example, by legalizing abortion or attempting to require priests to violate the seal of confession - are unjust.

The Church can help society understand the foundation for a democratic, pluralistic state, Mueller said: 'The state must be tolerant and accept all the diverse, different religions but on the basis of human rights and the natural moral law.'

'We as the Catholic Church are the promoters of religious freedom, not only requiring it for ourselves. We are not a lobby for ourselves, but we are the promoters of this natural right, which everybody deserves: religious freedom derived from the natural moral law and freedom of conscience.'

The Church also contributes to society through the development and promotion of Catholic Social Doctrine, education, and workers' rights issues, he said.

In engaging with modern challenges, Catholics should be careful not to fall into the political labels of conservative and progressive, the cardinal said.

'It is absolutely necessary that we overcome this distinction, this schism in the Church, as well as in the other Christian communities where we have this problem,' he emphasized.

'The Word of God is this reality who unites, unifies everybody. We are not divided in parties… we all united in the one Body of Christ, we are members of the Body of Christ, Christ is the head of His body, which is the Church herself.'

The division between 'liberal' and 'conservative' Catholics, Cardinal Mueller said, 'is against the Holy Spirit…[who] unites the Church and is the antidote against the divisions and separations.'

Following the Holy Spirit's guidance in humility is critical, he continued.

'Nobody, even the Pope and a council, has a direct line to the Holy Spirit because they are not receiving a new revelation. There is one revelation, forever given in Jesus Christ and therefore our basis is Holy Scripture.'

'We can say nothing, nor establish a doctrine or an understanding in the Church that is against the words of God in Holy Scripture and the expression of Catholic tradition,' he emphasized.

[Catholic News Agency] 2245.3

































News from around the world


Honduras Bishops' Conference replies to accusations of homosexual network at seminary

The statement, which asserts that the seminary follows the norms and morals of the Catholic Church, criticizes the National Catholic Register's reporting on the seminary for causing 'pain and scandal.' The Register, however, stands by the story.

EDWARD PENTIN reports : 'The bishops' conference of Honduras has expressed 'regret' that leaked information about a crisis of homosexuality in Tegucigalpa's major seminary has given it a bad reputation.

In a statement issued July 29, it also denies any institutionalized promotion of practices that are contrary to the morality and norms of the Church.

The bishops were responding to a July 25 Register article in which it was reported that nearly 50 seminarians had written a letter to bishops complaining of a homosexual network in Tegucigalpa's major seminary, and which they said is protected by its rector.

The Archdiocese of Tegucigalpa is headed by Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, the coordinator of the C9 Group of cardinals advising Pope Francis on Church and Curia reform.

The Register's article drew on the contents of the seminarians' letter, the existence of which was confirmed by a Honduran bishop. The seminarians wrote that they were encouraged by their spiritual advisers to write the letter and give it to the bishops as a plea that the homosexual activity among seminarians be stopped and that the bishops adopt stronger admittance practices for choosing seminarians.

The Register article quoted directly from one of the seminarians who had signed the letter, and referenced both a copy of a suicide note from a seminarian involved in a homosexual relationship with another seminarian, and graphic homosexual texts verified to have been exchanged between seminarians.

Also contacted for the article were the offices of Cardinal Maradiaga, the archbishop of Tegucigalpa, the Honduran bishops' conference and each of the country's bishops. None of the bishops had replied to the Register's queries at the time this article was published.

The bishops said they 'regretted' the information in the article, adding what was reported 'causes pain and scandal in those who supposedly it wants to defend.'

The bishops added: 'With all certainty and truth, we affirm that there does not exist, has not existed, nor should exist in the seminary an atmosphere such as the one presented in the news report at NCR [the Register] which gives the impression that institutionally there is the promotion and sustaining of practices opposed to the norms and morals of the Church under the complacent watch of the bishops.'

But the statement did not refer to or deny the contents of the seminarians' letter, nor any of the other substantiated facts in the article.

The Register stands by its reporting.

Elsewhere in their statement, the bishops said they are praying that priests increase their 'selfless dedication to the service of the Gospel' so that 'free, mature and fearless' vocations arise.

They also asked 'present and future seminarians' to 'grow in confidence, authenticity and transparency with their bishops and formators,' and view 'honestly in their communities and parishes the lights and shadows of the seminary.'

The bishops also requested that all parishioners increase their prayers for the major seminary and avoid all kinds of speculation that ignores the respect for the dignity of bishops, seminarians, formators and all who seek to carry out God's plan.

Bishops and seminarians are already engaged in a constructive dialogue, the statement added, and have enlisted the help of a bishop emeritus on the continent who has experience in the field of priestly formation.

[NCRegister] 2245.4

























United Kingdom Supreme Court rules that families can decide to starve brain damaged patients to death

THE SUPREME COURT has ruled that doctors can withdraw food and fluid from brain-damaged patients without going to court - if the patient's family are in agreement.

The Care not Killing (CNK) Alliance, of which SPUC is a key member, has expressed concern and disappointment that a key safeguard has been removed from vulnerable patients.

The ruling will effect up to 24,000 patients with permanent vegetative state (PVS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), meaning they can now be effectively starved and dehydrated to death if the medical staff and relatives agree that this is in their 'best interests'.

People in these states can breathe without ventilators, but need to have food and fluids by tube (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration or CANH). Until last year, all requests to remove CANH had to go before the Court of Protection. Now, the Supreme Court has upheld an earlier ruling by the High Court that where relatives and medical staff agree that withdrawal of CANH is in the patient's 'best interests', the Court of Protection need not be involved.

CNK Campaign Director Dr Peter Saunders said that the ruling 'removes an important safeguard from those without a voice.'

He also slammed the Supreme Court's ruling that there is no difference in principle between turning off a ventilator and removing a feeding tube as both are 'forms of medical treatment'

'In making these declarations Lady Black and the Supreme Court has dramatically moved the goalposts on end of life decision-making,' he said. 'Once we accept that death by dehydration is in some brain-damaged people's 'best interests' we are on a very slippery slope indeed...

[SPUC] 2245.5

























United Kingdom Children aged five carrying out sex-abuse seen on social media

LAURA DONNELLY reports for the Daily Telegraph :'Children as young as five are increasingly 'perpetrating sexual abuse' because of what they see on social media, charities are claiming.

Growing numbers of primary school pupils are exhibiting 'harmful sexual behaviour' as a result of the internet - with others groomed in their bedrooms via live broadcasts, they said.

One charity, Barnardo's, said children were now becoming perpetrators as well as victims. And in evidence to MPs, the charity highlighted a growth in 'live grooming', with parents oblivious to what was going on in their children's bedrooms.

Experts said middle-class parents had no idea that their children were being coerced into stripping for strangers, which was live-streamed globally for harvesting by paedophilic websites.

The Commons science and technology committee is being urged to call for regulation of such sites, with moderation of live broadcasts, and measures to stop children putting inappropriate material online.

The inquiry into the impact of social media and screen use on young people's health comes as The Daily Telegraph's Duty of Care campaign calls on social media to protect children from harm.

Barnardo's said three quarters of referrals for sexual abuse of children were internet-related - a rise from 20 per cent in three years. Emily Cherry, its assistant director, said young children were also becoming perpetrators: 'Children are perpetrating sex abuse against other children,' she told MPs.

'We are seeing children come through the doors at younger ages, below the age of criminal responsibility. We see children as young as five and an increase in the number of children aged eight to 10.

'They tell us they are on social media sites… and harmful sexual behaviour is definitely growing.' She said children were being coaxed into 'streaming' sexually explicit images of themselves online.

Ms Cherry called for robust age verification systems to stop children accessing sites where they could meet potential groomers, and live moderation of sites that stream in real time.

She warned parents to take care with allowing children access to the internet without supervision. 'It's like allowing a child to have a film crew in their bedroom,' she said.

She added that a failure to intervene could lead to problems as they grow up. 'If we don't help children understand what is wrong, that can lead to more serious behaviour in later life,' she said.

The Internet Watch Foundation said self-generated child sex abuse - usually the result of coercion - had soared nearly 400 per cent in just one year.

Facebook and Twitter said they had 'zero tolerance' policies in place for child sexual exploitation, and safety on live-streaming sites was a 'top priority'.

[Telegraph] 2245.6



















United States Pennsylvania Grand Jury report : Victims 'brushed aside.' predators protected

CHRISTINE NILES M.St. (Oxon.), J.D., reports for ChurchMilitant.com :Pennsylvania bishops cared more about avoiding scandal than protecting victims — this according to the Pennsylvania grand jury report, set for release as early as August 8.

A court filing made public Friday reveals Bp. Donald Trautman of Erie was one among two dozen clergy who filed to block release of the report, considered the most sweeping investigation into clerical sex abuse in American history. The 880-page report offers findings from six dioceses: Erie, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, Allentown and Greensburg.

In the court document, Trautman admits that continuing to block release of the report "could further injure victims of abuse," and so withdrew his appeal — but only on condition that certain accusations leveled against bishops in the report did not apply to him, namely:

• 'all of [the victims] were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institution above all"

• "The main thing was not to help children, but to avoid 'scandal'"

• "Priests were raping little boys and girls and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing: they hid it all"

• "Diocesan administrators, including the Bishops, had knowledge of this conduct and yet priests were regularly placed in ministry after the Diocese was on notice that a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made. This conduct enabled offenders and endangered the welfare of children"

• "several Diocesan administrators, including the Bishops, often dissuaded victims from reporting abuse to police, pressured law enforcement to terminate or avoid an investigation, or conducted their own deficient, biased investigation without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities"

The quotes shed light on the nature and scope of the findings, which include at least 300 named priests. So far, it's known that 64 come from Erie, 71 from Harrisburg and at least 90 are named from Pittsburgh (nearly one third of the total number). Bishops Lawrence Persico of Erie and Ronald Gainer of Harrisburg publicly released the list of names themselves, while an attorney for an accused Pittsburgh priest revealed the number of priests named from that diocese.

Gainer announced last week he was stripping every Church building of the names of all bishops since 1947, all of them complicit in shielding sexual predators. The move only came, however, after media pressure.

Check out CMTV's full #CatholicMeToo coverage

In response to Gainer's announcement, spokesman Joe Grace of the Pennsylvania attorney general's office said, "It is long past due for the Diocese of Harrisburg to make public the names of predator priests within the Catholic Church. Their proclamations today only come after intense public pressure and in the face of the imminent release of the Grand Jury report exposing decades of child abuse and cover up."

"To this point, the Diocese of Harrisburg has been adverse to transparency and has not been cooperative," he added. "A now public opinion by the judge supervising the grand jury last year made it clear they sought to end the investigation entirely."

The dioceses of Pittsburgh and Greensburg won't follow the lead of Erie or Harrisburg, however, refusing to release the names of accused priests until publication of the report.

It's widely expected that the name of Cdl. Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C. and former bishop of Pittsburgh (1988–2006), will make an appearance in the grand jury report, as he was named in multiple lawsuits during his tenure there alleging conspiracy to cover up sex abuse, and had a history of placing accused priests back in active ministry or failing to report them to law enforcement.

Trautman was bishop of Erie from 1990–2011, and championed the cause of progressive liturgy. He opposed the traditional reforms of Pope Benedict, critical of his motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which gave universal permission for priests to offer Mass in the old rite. As chairman of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, he spearheaded the use of more "inclusive" language in liturgical texts. His revised, "inclusive" version of the Roman Missal was ultimately rejected by Rome in 1998.

[CMTV] 2245.SUN1



















United States Bishop Scharfenberger's letter to clergy : 'a profoundly spiritual crisis'

BISHOP Edward B. Scharfenberger of Albany has sent the following letter to members of the clergy (vicars, priests, deacons, seminarians). It was also copied to Parish Life Directors and Department Heads at the diocesan Pastoral Center:

My dear brothers in Christ,

A psalm-prayer this morning from the Office of the Hours reads: 'Lord Jesus, you were rejected by your people, betrayed by the kiss of a friend, and deserted by your disciples. Give us the confidence that you had in the Father, and our salvation will be assured.'

Like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, many of our faithful are now feeling betrayed and abandoned by their spiritual fathers, especially the bishops. Perhaps you share this feeling, too. No doubt you have been and will be hearing from your people about how shaken and discouraged they are over public revelations of despicable behavior on the part of a very popular and charismatic Cardinal with priests and seminarians in his care. One holy and faithful Catholic gentleman - a medical professional and a dear friend - texted me just this morning about his family's utter despondency over this and that the USCCB should disband itself: '[t]heir credibility is shot, probably for decades.'

More words are not going to repair, let alone restore, the damage that has been done. Lawyering, pledges and changes in the bureaucratic structures and policy - however well intentioned - cannot do it either. I do not see how we can avoid what is really at the root of this crisis: sin and a retreat from holiness, specifically the holiness of an integral, truly human sexuality.

In negative terms, and as clearly and directly as I can repeat our Church teaching, it is a grave sin to be 'sexually active' outside of a real marriage covenant. A cardinal is not excused from what a layperson or another member of the clergy is not. A member of the clergy who pledges to live a celibate life must remain as chaste in his relationship with all whom he serves as spouses within a marriage. This is what our faith teaches and what we are held to in practice. There is no 'third way.'

'Sexual activity' includes grooming and seduction - the kind of experience that one of our brothers tells of in a recent interview in America magazine that you may have seen. The psychological and spiritual destructiveness of such predatory behavior, really incestuous by a man who is held up as a spiritual father to a son in his care - even if not a minor - cannot be minimized or rationalized in any way. On that, it seems to me, we are experiencing an unusual unity amidst the many political and ecclesial tensions in our communities.

Abuse of authority - in this case, with strong sexual overtones - with vulnerable persons is hardly less reprehensible than the sexual abuse of minors, which the USCCB attempted to address in 2002. Unfortunately, at that time - something I never understood - the Charter did not go far enough so as to hold cardinals, archbishops and bishops equally, if not more, accountable than priests and deacons.

It is my belief that the vast majority of clergy - priests, deacons and bishops alike - live or, at least, are striving to live holy and admirable lifestyles. I am ashamed of those of my brothers, such as the Cardinal, who do not and have not. As your Bishop, you can be sure of my support for you and all the faithful during this very difficult time. As the Holy Spirit impels me, I will use every power my office holds on all levels at which I serve, local and national, to further this charge.

We should be grateful for all of those who have come forward to expose these patterns of sin in the lives of some - as well as the institutional sins of denial and suppression of those brave witnesses whose warnings went unheard or unheeded, so that some of the harm might have been prevented.

I hope and pray that others who may have suffered such traumatic experiences at the hands of their spiritual fathers will find the courage to say so. To you, if you are among them, and to them I offer my support and assistance in any way the resources I have can muster.

Let me be clear, however, in stating my firm conviction that this is, at heart, much more than a crisis of policies and procedures. We can - and I am confident that we will - strengthen the rules and regulations and sanctions against any trying to fly under the radar or to 'get away with' such evil and destructive behaviors. But, at its heart, this is much more than a challenge of law enforcement; it is a profoundly spiritual crisis.

Blessed Pope Paul VI prophetically warned us in Humanae Vitae of the long-range consequences of the separation of sexuality and sexual behavior from the conjugal relationship. Contemporary culture in our part of the world now holds it normative that sex and sexual gratification between any consenting persons for any reason that their free wills allow is perfectly acceptable. This is not a sexuality befitting of human beings that responds to the need and true desire of every human person to be respected and loved fully and unconditionally.

All of us who are ordained to preach what the Church teaches must practice what we preach and teach. We also need to uphold what our faith proclaims about the gift and beauty of human sexuality, fully lived in its essential conjugal meaning. A culture of virtue and chastity - in short, personal holiness - rooted in a trusting and committed relationship with Jesus Christ is the path toward healing and wholeness, even as we seek to drive the evil behaviors among us from the womb of the Church.

Our preparation for the upcoming Eucharistic Congress on September 22nd in the Shrine of Our Lady Queen of Martyrs will be a time of spiritual renewal for all of us seeking to follow in the footsteps of our Lord and Master who was himself betrayed by his closest friends, but died for us to save us from ourselves and to offer us a way to living our humanity fully in this life and in the heaven to come.

I invoke upon you and all of those whom you lovingly serve, the Lord's blessing, through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, to whom our Diocese is consecrated.

In the peace of Christ that surpasses all understanding,

Your brother and servant in Christ,

+Edward B. Scharfenberger

Bishop of Albany

[Diocese o Albany] 2245.7























United States Harrisburg Diocese releases names of over 70 priests accused of abuse

STEVE SKOJEK reports for OnePeterFive : ;The Diocese of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has just released the names of over 70 members of its clergy who have been accused of sexual abuse in cases spanning back to the 1940s.

At a news conference, Bishop Ronald Gainer of Harrisburg released the list, revealing that since becoming bishop in 2014, he has overseen an effort to “verify the status of priests” accused of abuse going back more than half a century. He told the York Daily Record that he wanted to release the list sooner but that the office of the attorney general had requested that the diocese refrain from doing so to avoid interference with the state investigation of clerical abuse throughout Pennsylvania.

With the pending release of an interim grand jury report detailing findings of some 300 priests accused of abuse in six of Pennsylvania’s eight dioceses, including Harrisburg, the diocese decided to move forward with disclosure of the names. According to the Record:

'Gainer said he has learned that some survivors who had confidentiality agreements with the diocese have felt constrained by those agreements. He is waiving those confidentiality agreements. This is expected to be huge for survivors who want to tell their stories'.

According to the diocese, none of the clergy named in the list is involved in active ministry or teaching.

Sharon Tell, a 66-year-old woman who claims to have suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a now deceased priest beginning at age 12 while living in the Allentown diocese, indicated her disappointment in the diocese’s actions. “If they really cared about the people that were abused they wouldn’t have had to wait until it’s so public,” said Tell, in comments to the Record. “They could have done something to help us way back when.”

[1P5] 2245,7a




















United States Lay Catholics express 'righteous anger' over Church leaders' failure in McCarrick scandal

P LawlerPHIL LAWLER writes for CatholicCulture.org - 'This week I have been swamped with messages from loyal Catholics who have been shaken and disgusted by the latest eruption of the continuing sex-abuse scandal in the Church. I wish I saw some sign that our bishops recognized the rising tide of anger - righteous anger - among the most active lay Catholics.

Unfortunately, Bob Royal is on target when, borrowing a line from Leo Strauss, he says that the American bishops are like Nero, except 'they know neither that they are fiddling nor that Rome is burning.' Royal sums up the general level of dismay by saying that it is imperative for Church leaders to learn how the cancer metastasized:

Finding out how this was possible is going to call for some painful self-examination, both here and in Rome itself. But the alternative is business as usual. And that business is now in danger of bankruptcy.

In my view the most distressing development of the week was the craven public statement from Cardinal Sean O'Malley - who, as chairman of the special papal commission on sexual abuse, should be leading the charge against clerical misconduct. Instead he offered a bureaucratic response. He invoked the mossy old dodge that a crucial letter did not reach him. Notice that the cardinal did not say that he was unaware of the letter's contents. But if he wasn't aware, he should have been; and if he was aware, he should have taken action.

In National Review, Michael Brendan Dougherty did a thorough job of deconstructing Cardinal O'Malley's letter, along with the protestations of ignorance by Cardinal Kevin Farrell. He argues persuasively that the problem is not an absence of standards, policies, and procedures, but 'a fear of confrontation, insufficient zeal, or - most likely of all - ...moral compromise and passivity...'

In some cases, bishops showed themselves to be simply tone-deaf: unable to recognize that the patience of their people has been exhausted. Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, who has often been a breath of fresh air because of his willingness to speak plainly, blundered badly with a Twitter comment, saying that despite the latest uproar he was proud of his brother bishops. That prompted avery lively rejoinder at Catholic World Report by Christopher Altieri, who had a simple, blunt message for the American bishops: 'You have all failed us.'

(I am sorry that Bishop Tobin, shaken by the vitriolic reaction to his post, announced that he was deleting his Twitter account, convinced that the forum was an occasion of sin for himself and for others. He will be missed.)

If Altieri was rough on the US bishops, Ross Douthat of the New York Times was scathing in his analysis. Douthat made the trenchant observation that although the Catholic blogosphere is buzzing with news and analysis about the scandal, the secular media have taken a much less aggressive approach. Douthat believes that 'because of secularization and polarization and the bonfire they have made of their own moral authority, the Catholic bishops are now somewhat protected from media scrutiny by virtue of their increasing unimportance.'

There is a great deal of truth in that argument. The scandal is an important matter for those of us who think that the Catholic Church is important. But for those who are indifferent or hostile to Catholicism, the devastation wreaked upon Church authority during the 'Long Lent' of 2002 may be sufficient. On the other hand, Douthat does not deal with another obvious reason why the secular media have shown less interest in revisiting the story: The latest stories are very clearly stories about homosexual misconduct, and the secular media are, by and large, favorably disposed to the homosexual cause.

Nevertheless I think Douthat captures the importance of this moment for the Church:

The question that the church's leaders need to ask themselves, in America but especially in Rome, is whether they are happy with this settlement-happy to be ignored so long as they can also evade accountability for what's still rotten in the church, happy to serve out their time as stewards of a declining institution than demanding the heads of the men whose culpable ignorance made the decline much steeper than it should have been.

If anyone reading his column has somehow missed the uproar, J.D. Flynn provides a thorough briefing on the major elements of the story. Rod Dreher has written on the topic early and often, and his treatments - just one example among many here - have been exhaustive.

Of course I have been busy, too. My analyses are available here and here and here and here and here on the Catholic Culture site, as well as for First Things.

(Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org.)

[LSN] 2245.8






















United States McCarrick's former secretary claims Cardinal Wuerl didn't know about abuse settlements

CLAIRE CHRETIEN reports for LifeSiteNews : - Cardinal Donald Wuerl knew nothing of the abuse settlements paid to sex abuse victims of his predecessor Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, according to a letter sent to priests of the Archdiocese of Washington.

The letter, which came from Archdiocesan Vicar General Monsignor Charles Antonicelli, informed priests in the Archdiocese: 'Neither the Archdiocese of Washington nor Cardinal Wuerl knew about these confidential settlements until this most recent credible and substantiated allegation against Cardinal McCarrick was made public.'

Antonicelli was McCarrick's secretary when the cardinal was the Archbishop of Washington.

These settlements, for $100,000 and $80,000, were paid by the Dioceses of Trenton, Metuchen, and Newark in 2004 and 2006 to two men who had been abused by McCarrick while they were in the seminary as well as after they had become priests. McCarrick, known for being left-wing and supporting the distribution of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, was installed as Archbishop of Washington at the beginning of 2001. He retired in 2006; Wuerl succeeded him.

'For clarity, the Archdiocese of Washington did not participate in, make any contributions to, nor was involved in any way with these settlement agreements,' wrote Antonicelli. He said the Archdiocese of Washington found out about these settlements - which occurred when McCarrick was its leader - the same way as the public did, via recent media reports.

Since McCarrick was removed from public ministry over a credible allegation he molested an altar boy 50 years ago, whistleblowers and victims have come forward to describe McCarrick's predatory behavior and the disregard they received from Church officials when reporting it.

READ: Cardinal Farrell claims 'shock' at Cardinal McCarrick abuse. Really?

Pope Francis accepted McCarrick's resignation from the College of Cardinals this weekend. On Saturday morning, the Vatican issued a short statement that McCarrick would stay at an undisclosed location and live 'a life of prayer and penance until the accusations made against him are examined in a regular canonical trial.'

Julia Duin at Get Religion wrote that she found Wuerl's statement to local station WTOP in reaction to McCarrick's resignation suspicious.

Wuerl told WTOP: 'I think this was a big step forward in trying to act quickly, decisively, even though the whole procedure isn't concluded yet. The pope is saying that we need to show that we are hearing these things, paying attention and acting.'

'Oddly, I could not find any video of Wuerl's remarks on WTOP's site, so I could not tell if he answered all the questions he was asked or whether he dodged any,' Duin wrote.

WTOP reported that Wuerl said he had 'never been approached with allegations of abuse by McCarrick and was unaware of the rumors that have been associated with his predecessor.'

'What? Seriously? I can't believe any reporter let him get away with that statement,' Duin continued. 'This mess has been going on for more than a month and Cardinal Wuerl has yet to give a press conference about it. History's being made here and Wuerl's now camera shy?'

'I can possibly buy the first part of that sentence in that the dioceses that were approached were Metuchen and Newark. McCarrick hopefully ceased his sexual activity after becoming archbishop of Washington in 2000,' Duin allowed. 'But the second part? That he didn't know what the rumors were? He didn't know about any financial settlements? And 'abuse of a minor'? How about the reports about the abuse of seminarians?'

She expressed doubt that Wuerl had never heard any rumors of McCarrick assaulting or harassing seminarians:

Reporters must not give Wuerl a pass on this. I can understand how maybe, just maybe in 2006, when he was made archbishop of Washington, he might not have known the specifics on McCarrick. But not knowing the rumors after 12 years? This is a man who's known as a power player in the Vatican. You think the folks over there just forgot to tell him about McCarrick?

One also wonders whether when Wuerl took office, any of the New Jersey bishops who had to shell out money to McCarrick's victims warned Wuerl of the liability his predecessor posed.

Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley, appointed by Pope Francis to run a new commission on child sex abuse, also says he didn't know about allegations against McCarrick even though a priest sent him a letter about it in 2015.

'Recent media reports also have referenced a letter sent to me from Rev. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. in June of 2015, which I did not personally receive,' O'Malley wrote in the Boston Pilot. 'In keeping with the practice for matters concerning the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, at the staff level the letter was reviewed and determined that the matters presented did not fall under the purview of the Commission or the Archdiocese of Boston, which was shared with Fr. Ramsey in reply.'

The Archdiocese of Boston has strict mandatory reporting policies when it comes child abuse, but those apparently do not compel clergy to report allegations against senior church officials outside the diocese. O'Malley's statement did not indicate that his secretary, Father Robert Kickham, who responded to Ramsey's letter, did anything beyond telling the fellow priest that the matter was not under their 'purview.'

McCarrick reportedly lived on the grounds of a seminary during retirement. Allowing the cardinal to be in such a close proximity to young men actually seems consistent with the Archdiocese's claim to not have known about his proclivities. However, as Duin pointed out in an earlier piece:

I covered the Pope Benedict's 2008 visit to Washington, D.C. (and other cities) and I remember McCarrick was sidelined during those festivities. Rumor was that he was not happy about being deprived of a bigger role.

Look for this fact: Whose idea was it to take McCarrick down a peg, especially since McCarrick has always been a key source for national media?

Despite the statements from Wuerl and O'Malley, there are more questions than answers about who knew of McCarrick's abuse, when they knew, and why they remained silent.

That McCarrick's former secretary Antonicelli, now Washington's Vicar General, is the one insisting of the archdiocese's ignorance will almost certainly raise even more questions.


The theological roots of the present crisis


FR> D. VINCENT TWOMEY writes for the Catholic World Report : 'Bishop Edward B. Scharfenberger of Albany put his finger on the root of the present crisis caused by the McCarrick affair. It is, he said, “sin and a retreat from holiness, specifically the holiness of an integral, truly human sexuality.” He adds immediately: “In negative terms, and as clearly and directly as I can repeat our Church teaching, it is a grave sin to be ‘sexually active’ outside of a real marriage covenant.”

What a relief to hear such plain speaking from a bishop!

This clear teaching of the Church has been, at best, obfuscated for some 50 years, as indicated by the way the term “sin” has almost vanished from normal ecclesiastical discourse and holiness is rarely seen as the goal of morality. That obfuscation, it seems to this writer, is not only at the root of the phenomenon of aberrant sexual behaviour among clergy, as others have pointed out. [1] My thesis is that the same obfuscation is also at the root of failure of religious superiors to face up to such sinful behaviour and to deal with it decisively.

It is not insignificant that the Pandora’s Box opened up by the McCarrick scandal should occur during the very year the Church is celebrating the 50th anniversary of the promulgation Humanae Vitae. In the midst of all the celebrations, however, little attention has been given to fact that the Church’s teaching on the central principles of Catholic sexual morality newly articulated by Pope Paul VI was almost immediately rejected by dissenting theologians within days of its promulgation. Before the text of the papal document could have reached Washington, DC in the pre-fax-machine (and pre-email) era, Professor Charles E. Curran of Catholic University of America whipped up some 87 signatories to a letter that publicly rejected its teaching. Soon the list of signatories reached some 300, when, as Cardinal Stafford once testified, huge pressure was put on theologians and priests to sign, even though few if any could have actually read the document. Similar dissent was expressed in other countries throughout the world, though perhaps not as aggressively as in the USA or Germany.

For the first time in the history of the Church, leading theologians openly dissented from the Magisterium. And this happened even though Pope Paul VI expressly affirmed his authority as Successor of St. Peter to interpret the natural moral law as clarified by Divine Revelation in order to answer to the grave issues raised by demographic and cultural developments in the modern world (cf. HV 4). It was rejected as “non-infallible,” as though what is be accepted as authoritatively binding in conscience was limited to (rare) infallible ex cathedra pronouncements.

Three years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, which was broadly perceived as having upturned the traditional teaching and praxis in many areas, the appeal to the Church’s teaching authority no longer carried much weight. It was effectively replaced by the newly found weight of the magisterium of the theologians—to which many bishops were also in thrall. The result was that a number of prominent episcopal conferences—most remarkably that of West Germany (unlike that of East Germany)—came out with ambiguous statements on their reception of the encyclical. Their carefully crafted messages amounted to instructing the faithful to take note of the beautiful official papal teaching, but then judge for themselves as to whether it applied to them in their situation. This was proposed under the rubric of “following one’s conscience,” a seriously mistaken understanding of the meaning of conscience that characterized (and still characterizes) the dominant school of moral theology.

Humanae Vitae was promulgated in the fateful year 1968, the height of the sexual revolution. Soon the influence of that revolution began to seep into theology—and so into the seminaries, which at the time were full of young men susceptible to the seductive appeal of a more “liberating” approach to sexual morality. That new approach surfaced almost immediately after the rejection of Humanae Vitae. Thus, for example, in 1974, the Dominican theologian Donald J. Goergen published The Sexual Celibate. In it, he asserts, among other things, that “being celibate does not mean being asexual”; “chastity is not intended to lead one into a ‘no-touch’ style of life”; “when affectionate and genital feelings enter homosexual friendship, one should recognize and accept their presence. This does not mean the relationship is unhealthy.” It became “the reference book” on sexuality in the seminaries in the 1970s. One reviewer of Goergen’s book concludes that, though quite controversial when first written (in the previous year), “Goergen has seemed much more ‘mainstream’ since this book…was published.

How mainstream such ideas had become can be gleaned from the book Human Sexuality: New Directions in Catholic Thought, edited by A. Kosnik and others (1977—incidentally, this was the year one Theodore Edgar McCarrick was appointed auxiliary bishop in New York). The 322-page “Kosnik Report,” as it came to be known, was the product of a study commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America. It reflects the extensive literature on the subject that was part of the response to Vatican II’s call to moral theologians to renew their discipline. The theological views (and especially the “pastoral guidelines”) of the report became a standard approach to the teaching of moral theology and to pastoral practice. The authors claimed that contemporary theology was moving beyond the earlier, traditional approach based on outdated notions of morality and sexuality. “The book made excuses for masturbation, cohabitation, swinging, adultery, homosexuality, and even bestiality.”[2] The criticism by the Doctrinal Commission of the American Episcopal Conference (1977) fell on deaf ears, as, indeed, did the 1979 Declaration by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the book.

Its “pastoral guidelines” were based on the dominant school of fundamental moral theology which denied absolute moral norms as proposed by such prominent names as Charles E. Curran, Richard A. McCormick, S.J., Bernard Häring, C.Ss.R., and Josef Fuchs, S.J. Rejecting the Church’s teaching that any acts, such as homosexual acts, are intrinsically wrong, the writers of the report claim that “the objective moral evaluation of a person’s action must take into consideration the context of that person’s moral stance, the circumstances of the action, and the effects that issue from it” (p. 211). This is what became known as proportionalism, the “Catholic” version of situation ethics.

The report’s understanding of sexuality was primarily based on “the empirical sciences”—in effect those inspired by the now-discredited Kinsey Report. The new approach to sexuality found expression in the writings of Charles E. Curran, Donald J. Goegen O.P., Philip S. Keane S.S., and others, which were developed in the wake of public dissent from the teaching of Humanae Vitae. Once fertility is decoupled from the conjugal act, then most sexual acts within or outside marriage can be, if not actually justified, as least excused, the report claims, as long as they “are conducive to creative growth and integration of the human person” (p. 92). Sexuality, it claimed, is the Creator’s ingenious way of calling people constantly out of themselves into relationship with others. Sexual differentiation (male or female) is consequently reduced to an accidental physical condition of no essential significance, since the sexual impulse is simply “biologically tied” to procreation (and thus will be “biased” in the direction of heterosexuality). As a result: “All else being equal, a homosexual engaging in homosexual acts in good conscience has the same rights of conscience and the same rights to the sacraments as a married couple practicing birth control in good conscience” (p.216).

There is no mention of pederasty or pedophilia in the report. The only vague allusion to such criminal behaviour would seem to be in a paragraph dismissing widespread “myths” regarding homosexuals. There the claim is made that “proportional to their numbers in the population, heterosexuals are more prone to child molestation than homosexuals” (p. 212). Whatever about the general population, child molestation by clerics is some 80 percent homosexual. But this fact was generally ignored in earlier outcries over clerical sexual abuse. Why?

Space does not permit me to engage in any detail with the opinions of the Kosnik Report. Leaving aside significant factors such as psychological immaturity, innate proclivities, etc., these views of the theological establishment are mentioned here as contributing significantly to the spread of homosexual behaviour among seminarians and (later in life) clerics. The new approach to sexual morality also gave free reign to those with aberrant proclivities, in particular if they were in positions of authority over seminarians and priests. Even more significant in the wake of McCarrick is the way this very ambiguous attitude to “human sexuality” on the part of “mainstream” (i.e., dissenting) moral theology led in time to bishops and religious superiors effectively turning a blind eye to the sinful behaviour among clerics which they must have known about, even if they disapproved of it. When dealing with deviant sexual behaviour, the report generally recommended counselling. (Tragically, bishops all too readily accepted such advice.) Moral guilt is minimized, if not actually ignored.

Many clerics and bishops now in office would have been trained in (or at least exposed to) this “mainstream” moral theology. And even when their own intact moral instinct disapproved of such behaviour, those in positions of responsibility rarely had the theological means of justifying their better instinct—and so would have felt insecure as to how they should respond. (This, of course, is apart altogether from the role of more “human” factors such as cowardice and careerism on the part of bishops.) The theological uncertainty would also have played into the clerical self-protective tendency to cover-up.

In all likelihood, the uncertainty as to the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour may also be the reason why, as Ralph Martin wrote the following in his recent letter to “troubled Catholics”: “To this day, there are quite a number of ‘gay friendly’ parishes in even ‘good dioceses,’ where those afflicted with homosexual temptation are not encouraged to live chaste lives or offered effective correction, but instead are confirmed in their sexual activity. It seems many bishops are afraid to tackle the local ‘homosexual lobbies’ and choose to turn a blind eye.”

Like the cover-up, turning a blind eye to wrongdoing is also to sin against justice. All sexual sins are by their very nature sins against justice. But the injustice done by religious superiors to the victims of clerical sexual abuse of any kind (and to his or her family, indeed to the wider community) by failing to discipline the perpetrator or, worse still, to cover-up the crime is even graver still. The Church in recent decades has been vocal in its commitment to social justice. But it seems to have given little attention to the virtue of justice: the acquired personal disposition to give to others what is their due. It is part of tough love.

The attempt by Pope St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor (1993) to overcome the malaise in fundamental moral theology (at the core of which is the denial of intrinsically evil acts) was generally ignored by “mainstream” theologians. Most bishops probably had little idea as to what the Pope was talking about in Veritatis Splendor—an admittedly difficult and dense text. The Pope’s Wednesday audiences on the Theology of the Body, as well as his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, were part of Rome’s various attempts to correct the mistaken notion of human sexuality as manifested in the Kosnik Report. Mainstream moral theology ignored them, and indeed any of the other similar documents produced by Rome. The CDF’s Instruction on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, for example, was sharply criticized and rejected by the same theological establishment. Their claim regarding a dual magisterium (that of the theologians and of the Pope) put authoritative papal teaching, at best, on a par with the alternative, progressive views of moral theologians, but usually considered the former as inferior to the latter (since the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium was seen as conservative and rigid), thus encouraging the faithful to choose which opinion he or she preferred. This “choice” was then seen as acting according to one’s conscience.

In the course of the 50 years since leading theologians dissented on the teaching of Humanae Vitae, bishops came more and more to relinquish their own teaching authority. But equally fatally, they tended to turn a blind eye to the sinful behaviour of their clerics—and, it would now appear, of their fellow bishops, though this is yet to be proved.

This tragic development—which, apart from the real scandal it gave and continues to give (scandal understood in the strict sense as causing disbelief [cf. Mt 18:6]), resulted in unspeakable damage to seminarians and clerics at all levels, spiritual, psychological and even physical—can be traced back to the denial of sin, more specifically, the denial of intrinsically immoral acts. In his statement of August 1 (the feast of St. Alphonsus Ligouri, the patron of moral theologians, as it happened), Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo concluded frankly: “Our Church is suffering from a crisis of sexual morality.” That this fact has been publicly acknowledged by the president of USCCB is a real sign of hope.

But the crisis of sexual morality is rooted, as already mentioned, in an even deeper crisis, namely that of fundamental moral theology. This in turn reflects (and contributes to) the moral crisis at the root of modern, post-Enlightenment culture. Solzhenitsyn, in his controversial commencement address at Harvard 40 years ago, identified the source of the modern crisis affecting Western civilization as the humanistic way of thinking that emerged initially with the Renaissance:

This humanistic way of thinking which had proclaimed itself as our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

The failure to admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man and the search for happiness in this world are interrelated. Both are predicated on the denial of Transcendence (and so the denial of conscience as the antenna of Transcendence, that inner sense of right and wrong) and so the denial of the universal call to holiness as man’s goal in life. Both are materialistic—reducing moral behaviour to a calculus of advantages and disadvantages to the autonomous self. Both constitute the essence of secularism. That secularism has seeped into the very fabric of the contemporary theology.

The road to recovery and renewal will be long and difficult. Opposition can be expected from the theological establishment, those who have effectively lost their authentic Catholic conviction. Writing in 1997, Matthew Lamb noted: “There is no doctoral program in North America with a rigorous ratio studiorum that offers an integral formation in the doctrinal and theoretical traditions of Catholic teaching” (that situation has, in the meantime, been radically changed with the establishment of theology faculties such as those at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ave Maria University, and similar colleges).

The process of renewal must give priority to the state of moral theology. Striving after holiness must become the goal of all moral theology. Recent decades have seen major advances in the development of different schools of moral theology which, rooted in Revelation, are in harmony with Church teaching and are inspired by the recovery of virtue as preferred mode of moral reflection. That approach has been sanctioned by its use in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And new Catholic universities have been founded to foster such Catholic theology in the full sense of the term. These developments are signs of hope not only for North America. Renewal must evidently be accompanied by prayer and penance (including public penance) by clerics.

It would greatly help to kick-start a more widespread process of theological renewal were Pope Francis to authorize an affirmative answer to the second of the Dubia:

After the publication of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?


[1] In the wake of the 2002 scandals, Father Matthew Lamb wrote: “No adequate diagnosis of the contributory causes of the Catholic-priest-abuse scandals can overlook the role of dissent among theologians. I am afraid that we theologians have failed to acknowledge our own failures and the lies, to use St. Augustine’s strong language, which we have been communicating in our teaching and writings,” (Theological Malpractice: The Roots of Scandal, dated October 2, 2002). See also George Weigel, The Courage to be Catholic (New York, 2002).

[2] Matthew Lamb, Theological Malpractice, op. cit.

[CWR] 2245.9





















International Savonarola Voris



[CMTV] 2245.10





















International gloria.tv.news


[gloria.tv] 2245.11






















International Some jihad headlines of the week


Denmark : Imam calls for new jihad invasion of Europe

France: Muslims set church on fire, spray 'Allahu akbar' on the wall

Germany : Migrant plotted to detonate explosives in crowd of non-Muslims

Indonesia : Raw sewage dumped on heads of couple for violating Sharia

Tajikstan : ISIS claims to be behind attacks on cyclists

UK : Court recognizes validity of Sharia marriage for the first time

USA: Muslim sets massive blaze at Staten Island gas station

[CF News] 2245.12






















International The World Over with Raymond Arroyo




[EWTN] 2245.13























Disestablishing secularism through re-establishing the university

BENJAMIN WIKER, Associate Professor of Political Science and Human Life Studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville, delivers his talk entitled 'Disestablishing Secularism through Re-establishing the University.' Professor Wiker's talk was part of the Challenging the Secular Culture Conference, sponsored by the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville.



[University of Steubenville] 2245.14
























25,000 Letters to Parliament

JOHN SMETON, Chief Executive, Society for the Protection of Unborn Childre, emails : 'I am writing to you as a matter of urgency. Moves to decriminalise abortion in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are gathering speed, largely as a result of the tragic result of the abortion referendum in the Republic of Ireland.

With 50 years of campaigning experience, we know that the most powerful weapon we have to influence our MPs is a personal letter. That's why I am asking you to post a handwritten or typed letter to your MP.

To give you the information you need to write to your MP you can use our new briefing booklet 'We care about women' as well as our mass letter-writing Guidelines.

We have set an ambitious target: 25,000 letters to Parliament. Please also, if possible, ask other people to write. Would you be able to organise a letter-writing event at your church, after the summer holiday period? (Please see the Guidelines.)

A pile of pro-life letters on your MP's desk really will make a difference.

You can also order printed copies of the briefing booklet, the guidelines and specially prepared House of Commons pre-addressed envelopes, please use the order form here.

Please be assured that I would not be asking our faithful supporters to make this huge effort if it weren't absolutely necessary.

[SPUC] 2245.15






















BBC logo


BBC champions ‘gender free’ child raising in new documentary

CALVIN FREIBERGER reports for LifeSiteNews– A video recently shared by the BBC purports to shame adults for “gender-stereotyp[ing]” children and suggests that distinctions between boys and girls should be erased entirely.

The video, tweeted over last weekend, highlights an experiment in which a male or female baby is dressed in clothes opposite to the baby's sex, a mat full of toys is laid out, and a series of adult volunteers are filmed playing with the babies. The adults are not told of the experiment, and led to believe Edward is actually “Sophie” and Marnie is actually “Oliver.” The video is clipped from a program featuring Dr. Javid Abdelmoneim and is titled: “No more boys and girls: Can our kids go gender free?”


The BBC suggests that "stereotyped" toys will disadvantage girls later in life, noting that men “hugely dominate careers prizing maths, spatial awareness, and physical confidence” -- attributes ostensibly reinforced by “male” toys. The video does not identify what boys are supposed to gain from girls’ toys.

“Are boys born ‘better’ at these? Is it nature or is it nurture?” the video asks. “When children play spatial awareness games frequently their brains change physically within just three months.”

Despite the video coming down confidently on “nurture” as the answer, declaring the adult volunteers to have shown “bias” toward the kids, the actual footage seems to support their original intuitions, with Edward and Marine showing little interest in toys meant for “Sophie and Oliver.”

Nevertheless, the volunteers expressed guilt for acting on “stereotypes.”

“I thought that I was somebody that had a really open mind,” one said. Another echoed the sentiment, saying she “always thought I was rather more open-minded than that, and I would think that these are children’s toys, whatever the gender.”

“It will make me think, the next time I’m with a child, like my niece or my nephew, to make sure that I am actually being fair and equal with all of them,” another said. “And just giving each child an opportunity to just be whoever they are.”

“Adults in their insanity are messing around with gender and we have 50 years of proof this madness results in anxiety, depression, and too many suicides,” author and public speaker Walt Heyer told LifeSiteNews. Heyer is a former transgender who now operates a ministry to help gender-confused people come to terms with their God-given identity.

“This is psychological child abuse, and no kid should be subjected to this indoctrination of gender confusion period,” he continued. “Dr. [John] Money did this over 50 years ago and dead kids was the outcome.” Money was a psychologist considered to be a co-founder of the modern transgender movement.

The video quickly garnered widespread ridicule. “No matter how hard toy companies and gender-neutral advocates try to make children abandon the toys they are drawn to, girls will still take a stuffed animal and tuck it into a carriage with a blanket and a bottle,” wrote the Washington Examiner’s Nicole Russell, a mother of two boys and two girls. “Boys will still prop that same animal up on a chair so they can ‘shoot’ it down with a Nerf gun.”

Russell noted that her kids naturally gravitated toward the toys and activities associated with their gender, despite having plenty of both in the house, and highlighted a November 2017 study which found that the “consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin.”

“This shouldn’t be shocking,” Ben Shapiro adds at National Review. “Even rhesus monkeys differentiate toy preference by sex. And the patriarchy among rhesus monkeys is difficult to chalk up to gender stereotyping.”

At The Federalist, David Marcus argued that the story proved that slippery-slope warnings once mocked by liberals were correct after all, and warned that the BBC was playing with forces it didn’t truly understand.

“Boys will be girls, girls will be boys. It’s all just a cultural construct anyway, so why not construct new ones?” he wrote. “But construction is hard. The traditional concepts we have of sex-driven gender roles took tens of thousands of years to come into being. This new idea, that biology and gender have nothing to do with each other, is a novelty being tested on kids who really can’t consent to the experiment.”

Westmonster compiled a string of reactions deriding the segment, as well, including a condemnation from UKIP Assembly group leader Peter Whittle.

Peter Whittle AM @prwhittle This is not a spoof. The @BBC is using your money to produce this stuff. Compliant adults overseen by an ‘expert’ showing them the error of their ways. Pure cultural Marxism: shake people’s confidence in order to break down further the hated ‘norms.’

Scrap it once and for all

[LSN] 2245.MED1























Comment from the internet




The Moment before the storm

STEVE SKOJEC writes for OnePeterFive : 'I've been sitting at my desk for the better part of three hours, skimming through news and social media, trying to get a sense of things this week.

It's not entirely clear to me what I should say. In my entire lifetime as a Catholic, I don't think I've ever seen or felt anything like this. There is a groundswell building in the Catholic world, like the beginning of a scream that starts deep in the gut and begins forcing its way upward. It is a feeling of countless voices beginning to rise in pure, unmitigated outrage.

This afternoon, I spoke to someone who has been in Catholic media far, far longer than I have. He echoed this sentiment, saying that he, too, had never seen anything like it.

I am searching my mind for an analogy that fits, and what comes to mind is the kind of thunderstorm one gets on a late summer afternoon, where the bright sun begins to give way to thick, dark, roiling clouds that nearly turn the day into night. The kind of sky that tells you on an instinctive, primal level that you'd best get indoors. The lightning hasn't broken loose, but the early deep-throated growls of thunder can be heard from afar. The hail and drenching downpour haven't begun pelting everything in sight, but the air is electric with their promise. What will become tree-bending gusts of winds are for the moment only hinted at, the tips of branches rustling gently, leaves turned up to show pale undersides.

We are in the moment before the storm.

More accusations against McCarrick - and others - are beginning to come forth like the first fat droplets of rain. In a new story I read this afternoon about the accuser going only by his first name, James - the boy who claims he was molested by a young Fr. McCarrick when the child was only 11 - there was a heartbreaking passage:

'It was the start of an abusive relationship that lasted well into James's adulthood, said James, whose story was first reported by the New York Times. He said it drove him to alcoholism as a teen. He is now long sober but said the abuse has haunted him since.

'What he did to me was he ruined my entire life. I couldn't break the hold. I couldn't live up to my ability - to stay employed, married, have children. I lost all those opportunities because of him,' James said. Breaking into tears, he said, 'I try to be a really good kid every day.'

Imagine it: a 60-year-old man still thinking of himself in terms of trying to be 'a good kid' because the abuse he began suffering at age 11 never allowed him to escape that moment in time. My heart aches for that child.

You know who it doesn't ache for? The papal henchmen:

'Vatican representatives Greg Burke and Paloma García Ovejero did not respond to several requests for comment'.

I wonder what it feels like to sell your soul. It can't be pleasant.

Meanwhile, the Honduran Bishops, rather than addressing the concerns of nearly 50 of their seminarians alleging serious problems with homosexual activity in the major seminary at Tegucigalpa, have chosen to attack them - even in the immediate wake of the resignation of the sexually abusive auxiliary bishop of that diocese, Juan José Pineda Fasquelle, CMF. According to a report from CNA, the Honduran bishops issued a statement yesterday attacking those who came forward, saying that 'it is evident that there are weeds and evil, especially, in making 'anonymous' reports;' in airing them, mixing in facts, suspicions and interpretations; while ignoring the monitoring given to the challenges that arise.

And further, they asked everyone to 'increase your prayers for our Major Seminary and avoid any kind of speculation which fails to respect the dignity of bishops, seminarians, the formators, and that of all of us who with limitations and failings seek to carry out the Lord's work.'

It has the fingerprints of the villain, Cardinal Maradiaga, all over it.

And considering his pull in Rome, perhaps it should be unsurprising that even the Spanish section of Vatican News got in on this, joining the Honduran bishops in accusing 'American media' of publishing 'a series of news attacking the Honduran church, and the cardinal' and spreading 'infamies against the Major Seminary in Honduras'. It sells the line given by the Honduran bishops, which asserts, 'With complete certainty and truth, we affirm there does not exist, nor has there existed, nor ought there exist in the seminary an atmosphere as presented by the aforementioned National Catholic Register report, in which the impression is given that [the seminary] institutionally promotes and sustains practices contrary to morality and the norms of the Church, viewed with complacency by the bishops'.

Clericalism. Clericalism again and again. Not the good kind of clericalism, that constitutes a reverence for the sacramental priesthood and its sacred functions, but the kind that makes moral monsters feel superior and untouchable because they have been ordained. The kind of clericalism that buries abuse and misconduct.

Meanwhile, the Farrells and Wuerls and Tobins of the Church continue to deny everything they almost certainly knew about McCarrick. In an interview with the Catholic Standard - the archdiocesan paper for Washington, DC - Wuerl also says:

'There is understandable anger, both on a personal level due to the charges, but also more broadly at the Church. Our faithful have lived through such scandals before, and they are demanding accountability. I believe the actions taken by Pope Francis clearly reflect an understanding that we must move swiftly to address claims of any form of abuse or serious breach of trust by ministers of the Church, no matter who they may be or what position they may hold. Acknowledging such grave breaches of trust and seeking forgiveness open the doors for healing'.

Understandable anger? No, Your Eminence. You don't understand the anger. You don't know what's going through the mind of every Catholic mother and father who have to consider leaving their child alone with a priest, not knowing if he's part of the 'network.' Altar boy practice? Summer camps? The confessional? Are they ever safe?

And what about the priests who have nothing to do with this? How angry do you think they have a right to be for being associated with this and under suspicion because the bishops either refused to rein in the perversity in their dioceses or were actively involved in it? How many of them have spent their priesthoods dodging unwanted advances from fellow priests and wary glances from parishioners at the same time? How many have faced retributive action from active homosexuals higher up the ecclesiastical food chain because they won't play along? Maybe they're past anger. Maybe they're just despondent. Maybe a number of them have even sought solace in other things that do not build up their priesthood or the Body of Christ because they are completely isolated and powerless and ready to give up hope.

And lets not pretend the 'actions taken by Pope Francis clearly reflect' anything except that he continues to be willing to protect his own. We've covered the cronyism on this here before. We've been doing it for years. I won't repeat it now.

The doors aren't going to open for healing, Your Eminence, until the entire Church has been gutted and the infestation cleansed with fire.

And this is all before the interim grand jury report drops next month from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court - a report that will reveal information regarding findings about sex abuse in six out of eight Catholic dioceses in the state.

A report that is supposed to identify THREE HUNDRED 'predator priests' - although some are fighting to have their names redacted. The Pennsylvania Attorney General is asking Pope Francis to help the truth come to light.

Does anyone really think he will? Do we think the 'healing' can start while the wounds are still being inflicted? This has only just begun.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see churches torn down stone by stone and be forced to worship in someone's basement than to allow a single one of these predators another moment of cover.

The storm is almost here, and its ferocity will be a marvel to behold.

[1P5] 2245.16























Cardinal McCarrick and the last Novus Gasp

MICHAEL J. MATT and THOMAS MORE MA, JD, PhD write for The Remnant : 'The Barque of Peter is stuck in an unholy see of 'filth.' Many of its occupants struggle to normalize their relationships with the cabin boys. On the poop-deck is Theodore ('Uncle Ted') Mc Carrick, and behind him are numerous clerics, all saluting McCarrick and sporting blue-striped sailor ensembles. Apparently, he liked his victims and 'lovers' to wear such outfits on occasion. Those saluting encourage the oarsmen, as the barque forays deeper and deeper into the filth:

'Forward, forward, there shall be no turning back,' as Pope Francis has stated with regard to the changes of Vatican II.

Cardinals Farrell, Maridaga, Wuerl and O'Malley, among many other Cardinals, are behind these men. As they stand there, their long flowing white frocks billowing in the wind, they sport blindfolds and weighing scales. Resembling Lady Justice in such attire, they proclaim their innocence of any knowledge of any impropriety, sexual or financial, and they say that they are 'shocked' and dismayed. They wonder openly how Uncle Ted could have gotten away with all of this seemingly well-known behaviour, although even if they had known, they say in lawyer-speak, it would not have been within their jurisdiction to unveil his evil. In other words, 'It was not my job! I know him not!' Moreover, they say, while the conduct in question was 'immoral,' it was not illegal. But, like the raven, they quoth 'Nevermore.' We shall see!


Behind such high-ranking prelates, in turn, are the clerics who speak of 'mercy' and compare the righteous anger at McCarrick and his clerical cohorts, conspirators, and enablers to a 'mob' persecuting Jesus, the sinless Lamb. Even within the hierarchy, the words of Christ himself have become truly perverted, so that good is bad and bad is good.

The usual suspects in Rome start threatening to shut down the blogs complaining about those who give voice to the self-evident proposition that both marital adultery and clerical sodomy and sexual impropriety are prohibited by both our Tradition and the Bible. These clerics seek to persecute those of the Faithful who hold true to our Tradition. This, they say, is in 'the best interests of the Church,' of course, not because of that individual's malice or any hidden homosexualist agenda on his part. The threat to punish free, truthful and open speech and opinion is, rather, styled as an attempt to punish 'hatred,' and it is financed, ironically, by the donations of the laity themselves and contrary to their intent in giving said monies.

Bill McGurn of The Wall Street Journal compares the McCarrick situation to a watershed moment akin to the Reformation:

'A reform serious and meaningful must emerge from it, or must assuredly the Church will split. In this process, let us thank God and His Providence for the First Amendment, which will protect the laity in doing what we need to do to rid ourselves from such evil men and their evil ways'.

Thank God, the McCarrick story broke before the Dublin Synod, which was undoubtedly going to take 'the logic of Amoris' and apply it to active homosexuals 'in the Church.' Amoris, after all, makes the astonishing claim-especially after the pederast abuse crisis-that continuing an adulterous relationship can be better than healing a broken sacramental marriage. Moreover, it seems to assert that some non-sacramental relationships can be more filled with grace than sacramental marriage.

Within this context, the current Bishop of Rome allegedly has said that there is no Hell. And, his ghost-writer on Amoris, cardinal Heal-Me-With-Your-Mouth-Fernandez, has allegedly stated that he believes 'all are saved.' Within this theological/philosophical context, the behaviour of people like Uncle Ted, would seem to be, possibly, as moral as the sexual behaviour of married couples. Once Christ's precise words on adultery have been denied or undermined, as they have been in Amoris, then over-ruling the Bible's prohibition on homosexual sodomy and other forms of clerical deviance would be a piece of cake. All of this was, from a Catholic perspective, seemingly an attack on 'the family' as that notion was and is Biblically enshrined. As such, in light of Uncle Ted, it looks as if these men may have been seeking to normalize their own deviancy, and it is unsurprising, as such, that they are now seeking to overturn-'reinterpret'-Humanae Vitae.

What to do now, especially since Cardinal Farrell-who lived with McCarrick for six years and was one of his proteges-was recently selected to head the quiet revolution in sexuality envisioned at the Youth Synod, which, incidentally has been plagued by allegations that the preliminary commission refused to take seriously the recommendations of Traditional Catholics? This pontificate of sinful facilitation must surely feel stymied at this moment in time. The filth of it all has been revealed to the world, and investigations will surely follow, in one form or another. Can they now get away with what was possibly planned? The only rational action lest they row themselves further into their own filth is to stop this Synod, NOW! It cannot get any better for them, and we must let them know this, immediately.

Along those lines, we-those of us who believe-must use every weapon at our disposal to free our Church from its recalcitrant clerics and the squalid reality in which the Church finds itself. The Church is ours, it is Christ's, and we must take it back from such evil men. We cannot allow them to scourge Christ and stand idly by as they attempt to wash their hands of the situation, as Pontius Pilate and people like Cardinal O'Malley appear to have done, while possibly all neatly dressed in blue-and-white naval stripes. No amount of lawyering should be allowed to facilitate their hand-washing. Thus, the question arises: How do we fight a clerical and hierarchical Church, when we are only lay people?

Well, although lay, we have been called also as part of 'The People of God,' and we can resist; we have Christ on our side. In this regard, one author has recommended that we put our ideological differences aside when it comes to this issue. In essence, many of us view ourselves as being Traditionalists, Conservatives or Liberals. But all of us are disgusted by this. As such, coming together for this limited purposes seems like a good idea.

Many authors say that we should simply stop giving money to corrupt bishops and priests. In the interests of coming together in the face of this crisis, it must be noted that Church Militant's Michael Voris has recommended this course of action: Let them reap what they have sown; let the dead bury their dead. Much of our money recently has been diverted to abuse settlements and the support of 'lovers' and extravagant lifestyles. Let's turn off the spigot. From now on, let us donate only to good priests and parishes. Pope Francis has said that he wants a 'poor church for the poor.' Let them have it.

On The World Over with Raymond Arroyo, it was recommended that we set up another-third-commission to look into this predatory behaviour within the Church. Undoubtedly we should petition the Vatican to set up such a commission for 'The Good of the Church.' This should be a lay-led, but Church-empowered commission 'with teeth,' says Marjorie Murphy-Campbell, a mother, attorney and canonist. If such a commission ever does see the light of day, undoubtedly this kind lady should be on it. However, it is unlikely that this hierarchy will open up fully-at least not within this context!

Raymond Arroyo, himself, notes that in addition to homosexual predation and rape, the commission should also involve financial impropriety, for where there is one, there is normally the other. Similarly, Father John Zuhlsdorf, a well-known priest and blogger, yesterday stated that perhaps Pope Francis should appoint a canonical Special Prosecutor, an Inquisitor, who shall look into the Dioceses in question. All of these suggestions are good and desirable. Let's open the books of the Church and see how many settlements of this sort have been made nationally, and who knew what and when. After all, the Church is a charity and the hierarchy is a fiduciary of our money. We have a right to know what was done with it and whether it was used in a way that serves our intent.

But, add to all of these another idea, one not yet spoken of openly: Civil investigation and prosecution. After all of this-after all of these years and all of these scandals-we Catholics should not only tolerate, but request-nay, demand-that the State and Federal authorities become involved in rooting out the predatory rape culture that seems to have infiltrated our seminaries and Church. What we see appears to be an institutional, national and international set of behaviours which qualify for protection under State and Federal versions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizational Act (RICO). It also smacks of human trafficking and organized exploitation and rape, something Pope Francis has put on his list of priorities, and something upon which our civil law frowns, as well.

If, ultimately, somehow, remarkably, such predatory sexual contact under duress does not qualify for prosecution, then there is a gap in the law which must be closed. Let us petition our government for new laws that protect us all from such men. Never again can we have a Cardinal attempt to dismiss such predatory behaviour as being 'immoral.' From henceforth let us make sure that it is unequivocally viewed as being illegal, and let us make sure that when bishops know about it, they are under a duty to act.

Thus, from this point forward, let us lift our heads from the sand and stand behind the civil-criminal authorities, such as Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, who seeks full-disclosure from the Vatican on issues like this. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and let us not forget that civil society-unlike the hierarchy-responds directly to us: We, The People. In this regard, and at this moment, the interests of the civil authorities and the interests of the Catholic laity are aligned. This is equally true for the personal injury-lawyers and those who seek civil redress for the harm done to our seminarians. Let us welcome such actions, for without the law we are now lost!

[Remnant] 2245.17






















Why do people have a problem with the Novus Ordo?

STEVE SKOJEC writes for OnePeterFive : 'Ever since the new rite of Mass was introduced in 1969, battles over liturgy have ensued.

But something has changed: we have reached a critical moment in Church history, namely, the widespread recognition that simply because a pope says or does something does not necessarily mean it is in the best interest of the Church or the faithful. It is therefore an opportune time for us to consider again whether the changes in the Mass that were forced upon the Church in 1969 were in fact good simply because the pope gave them to us.

The misleading terms of 'Ordinary' and 'Extraordinary' form - which came from Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum - provide euphemistic cover to an unprecedented liturgical dissonance within the Roman Rite; two liturgies, one sacred and time-tested as the fruit of organic development, another created by a committee with a clear rhetorical purpose at odds with the historical understanding of liturgy throughout the Church's two thousand years.

I am aware that many readers here continue, whether by choice or because they have no other option, to attend the so-called 'Novus Ordo' or 'Ordinary Form' of the Mass. They read our articles and share our concerns about the state of the Church in most respects, but for some, our preoccupation with the shape of the liturgy exists as a stumbling block. And I ask those readers in particular to stay with me, if they are willing, so that I can try to better explain why this battleground is where so many of our efforts are spent.

In recent days, I've found myself in a number of discussions about various topics. Oddly, it seems the 'traditionalist' Catholic view about the importance of liturgy often winds up being part of the debate. In one example, in part of a larger discussion about the corruption in the institutional Church, a man said to me, 'You are much like a dear priest friend who loves the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) and thinks its return will solve the human problems of the Church. His bitterness is in danger of crushing his Faith. Yours is in danger for the same reason.'

We were not talking about the liturgy, so why do so many such arguments inescapably find their way there?

You've no doubt heard the sentiment my interlocutor is referring to: 'Save the liturgy, save the world.' This is of course an oversimplification, but not a gross one. It would be a critical error to understate the significance of liturgy in our lives. As I wrote in my essay, 'Why Liturgy Really is the Key to Everything,'

'[A] proper understanding of liturgy grounds us in a correct knowledge of our place in the universe. Liturgy that emphasizes Our Lord's Sacrifice and places us mentally and spiritually before the Cross on Calvary humbles us and makes us receptive to our absolute dependence on God for all good things, especially our salvation. Liturgy where priest and people alike are oriented toward Heaven and where sacred things are veiled and shrouded and reverenced in an appropriate way teaches us who we are - and what duties we have - in relation to Him from Whom all good things come and in Whom we must trust when we have no choice but to walk by faith rather than by sight. Liturgy should make us feel small, like entering the great edifices of Christendom.'


'The attack on the liturgy that we have witnessed over the past half-century can be understood as nothing less than a diabolical attempt to strike at the heart of our most important and intimate connection with Our Creator - and also to confuse and disorient us through this loss of perspective. We have been given over to idolatry - the idolatry of self, such that we see the world only through the lens of our own desires. Christ's sacrifice has been replaced with food and fellowship, His altar of oblation turned into a table, His priesthood adulterated by those persons who intrude upon the domain of the priest but do not possess the ability to act in persona Christi, the universal orientation of priest and people toward God turned inward so that we are, in essence, all just talking to ourselves, and nearly every act of reverence for the sacred has been stripped away.

'Christ remains present in this reinvented, banalized, man-centered liturgy, but He is ignored, forgotten, abused, and upstaged. Like Cain, we no longer offer God our best, but keep it for ourselves. Anyone who attempts to offer God what He deserves, like Abel, is met with envy, contempt, and even violence.


'The architects of the Church's 'new and improved' liturgy knew exactly what they were doing. RFRRRAnd they have been successful. They have, with a single stroke, moved the entire liturgical edifice of the Church to a foundation of sand. And now that this edifice is crumbling to the ground, and the faith along with it, they swoop in, telling us that the other truths of our faith are nothing more than 'ideals' too hard to live up to, that because things have strayed so far, we must now find ways to accept and work with situations 'as they are.' By destroying our understanding of our relationship with God through the central act of prayer of the Church, they have undermined all else besides. Now, after half a century of demolition, they are dismantling what's left of the faith almost unopposed'.

Mass: It's Not About Us

Humanism is unquestionably one of the defining characteristics of the post-conciliar Church. And it absolutely prioritizes the interests of man over those of God - the exact thing Our Lord accused St. Peter of when He said, 'Get behind me, Satan!' (Mt. 16:23)

For example, how would you feel about this sentiment if you heard it from the pulpit? 'According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.'

What if it wasn't from the pulpit? What if it was from the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 12?

Does anything about that assertion strike you as odd? If so, you're not alone. Christ is the center of all things, even on earth. Not man. This inversion in philosophical understanding helps to explain so many of the problems we see in the Church today. This sentiment, expressed time and again in both word and action, has only grown stronger in the intervening years. We're at the point now where a papal document - Evangelii Gaudium 161 - says that love of neighbour is the first and greatest commandment, when the scriptures make absolutely clear that it is love of God that is the first and greatest.

We are turning inwards. We have begun, whether we mean to or not, to worship ourselves.

Of course, we were warned that this would come. The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita - an Italian group closely associated with freemasonry in the 1800s - made clear their intentions in 1859, when they spoke of their aims in infiltrating the Catholic Church:

'In a few years the young clergy will have, by force of events, invaded all the functions. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the…humanitarian principles which we are about to put into circulation… Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. You wish to cause the last vestige of tyranny and of oppression to disappear? Lay your nets like Simon Barjona. Lay them in the depths of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than in the depth of the sea… You will bring yourselves as friends around the Apostolic Chair. You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner - a Revolution which needs only to be spurred on a little to put the four corners of the world on fire. ' [emphasis added]

The Novus Ordo, by design, strips away the ethos of sacrifice from the liturgy, and turns its attention inwards, towards man. Towards community and meal sharing. Towards turning an altar of sacrifice into a supper table. Towards the placation of theological differences between religions. Towards inclusivity, and other human concerns. In its purest form - often referred to by those who say it can be 'celebrated well' - it can shed some of the most problematic accidentals we most commonly see: versus populum, full vernacular, laity in the sanctuary, banal contemporary music instead of sacred, communion in the hand, communion standing, and so forth. Nevertheless, even offered mostly in Latin, ad orientem, it retains the changes made to the essential prayers of the Mass, strips away the rubrics and gestures that promoted such great sacramental reverence, takes away the supplication of the priest (prayers at the foot of the altar) and people (the multiple confiteor), dilutes the offertory, and makes use of non-Catholic prayers interwoven througout. It essentially - as its architect Annibale Bugnini said it should - strips away the stumbling blocks for non-Catholics to find the liturgy approachable. Which means the distinctly Catholic identity of the Catholic liturgy has been surgically removed. (For those interested in comparing the prayers in the two forms, see this side-by-side text.)

I say this not to offend, but because I believe it to be unequivocally true: The so-called 'Ordinary Form' is an inferior liturgy, not only to the one it sought to replace, but to the other rites of the Church. Go to a Byzantine or Ukranian or Melkite or Chaldean parish and you will find liturgies redolent of one another, and of the the old Roman Mass. You will find nothing that reminds you of the Novus Ordo - but you will find such reminders in many Lutheran churches, some of which use variations on the same liturgical text.

There is no easy way to say it: the new Mass is an artifice; it is a modern construct created out of whole cloth, not the fruit of some organic theological development across the span of centuries. Ratzinger famously characterized it as a 'fabrication, a banal product of the moment'. But even Pope Paul VI, who was directly responsible for promulgating it, implicitly acknowledged its invasive and counterintuitive nature in his general audience of November 29, 1969:

'This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed-perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their usual torpor.

'We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.'

The truth is, many of the faithful have never stopped being annoyed, and the young faithful who discover the Church's perennial liturgy discover this same annoyance anew. What the faithful were drawn out of was not 'torpor,' but authentic devotion. Reverence. Supplication. They were given a stone instead of bread, a resounding gong, a clanging symbol, not a sign of love and expression of true worship of and devotion to the God who so loved us that He offered everything through His death on the cross for the expiation of our sins - a sacrifice made present on every Catholic altar, but not treated with the same awe and wonder by every liturgy.

Many arguments have been made that this or that aspect of the new liturgy is actually more traditional, more in line with historic Christianity. These arguments will always be debated, because the information we have about liturgy in apostolic times is somewhat limited.

But as Martin Mosebach writes in his Heresy of Formlessness,

'If, however, we think correctly and historically, we should realize that what is an expression of veneration in one period can be an expression of blasphemy in another. If people who have been kneeling for a thousand years suddenly get to their feet, they do not think, 'We're doing this like the early Christians, who stood for the Consecration'; they are not aware of returning to some particularly authentic form of worship. They simply get up, brush the dust from their trouser-legs and say to themselves: 'So it wasn't such a serious business after all.' Everything that takes place in celebrations of this kind implies the same thing: 'It wasn't all that serious after all.' Under such circumstances, anthropologically speaking, it is quite impossible for faith in the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to have any deeper spiritual significance, even if the Church continues to proclaim it and even if the participants of such celebrations go so far as to affirm it explicitly.'

The return of sacred liturgy to the Church will not solve all 'the human problems of the Church,' it's true; but it would be a significant step in that direction. A people who worship God in a fitting manner are much more likely to recognize the importance of honoring His precepts that extend beyond the confines of their Sunday obligation. It is not because of a concern for personal preference or the Latin Language or a love of the old-fashioned that traditional Catholics - many of them too young to remember when the old Mass was the normative liturgy of Roman Catholicism - are so drawn to what it represents. It is a bulwark against the seductions of the world, an experience that transports us from our quotidian existence across time to the foot of the Cross on Calvary and leaves us trembling in awe of what was done on our behalf, motivating and inspiring us to carry that mission out of the parishes and into a broken world - a world in need of the full power and majesty of Christ's redemptive sacrifice.

[1P5] 2245.18





















Msgr. Melina: Applying a 'Paradigm Shift' to Humanae Vitae would distort its Meaning

As the encyclical turns 50, the president emeritus of the Pontifical Pope St. John Paul II Theological Institute tackles various attempts to soften its teaching.

Mgr. MelinaEDWARD PENTIN writes for the National Catholic Register : 'The teaching contained in Humanae Vitae belongs to the natural moral law and is therefore 'a definitive truth that the Church cannot change,' a former president of the Pontifical Pope St. John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences has said.

In comments to the Register July 2 to mark the 50th anniversary of Blessed Paul VI's landmark encyclical July 25, Msgr. Livio Melina explains the true nature of the document that principally taught married couples to be generous in their openness to life and reasserted the Church's ban on deliberate contraception.

Msgr. Melina stresses that any 'development' of the encyclical could only be achieved in 'vital coherence with Tradition, without spurious additions' and that presumed 'paradigm shifts,' although claiming not to change doctrine, 'actually distort its meaning, since they make good what was previously evil and evil what was previously good.'

Furthermore, the Italian professor, who teaches fundamental moral theology at John Paul II Institute, says it is 'truly petty and pitiful' to suggest Blessed Paul VI was a timid person who 'out of fear' went along with 'traditionalist' members of the Curia and that his own sentiment would have been to have sided with those pushing for a softening in the Church's teaching on contraception - a dissent that had so 'embittered him.'

Msgr. Melina's comments come as various indications have suggested pressure may be exerted to soften the encyclical's teaching on contraception to coincide with its half centenary. See also this article in which various other authorities debate possible permissible changes to the encyclical.

NCR : Msgr. Melina, what is the core of Humanae Vitae? Is it an ideal orientation left to the interpretation of each person's conscience as some have claimed or is it a binding moral norm?

LM : The founding nucleus of the encyclical Humanae Vitae is found in paragraph Nos. 12 and 14. No. 12 expresses in positive terms the principle of the 'inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act' - a doctrine, it says, 'often expounded by the magisterium.' Moreover, it is expressed in negative terms as a consequent norm, in No. 14: 'Excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation - whether as an end or as a means.' The act of contraception is in fact defined as 'intrinsically wrong' and 'it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive.'

These statements cannot be interpreted as mere ideal guidelines valid for the whole of conjugal life, because the teaching of Humanae Vitae explicitly refers to every single conjugal act. The encyclical in these two points clearly responds to the question discussed and rejects the thesis (of the 'majority report' of the commission that advised Paul VI) that, in the name of the so-called 'principle of totality,' it is claimed not to apply to individual acts, but only to married life as a whole.

NCR : Is it a doctrinal teaching or only disciplinary and pastoral?

LM : No. 4 of Blessed Paul VI's encyclical affirms that this response is based on the 'moral doctrine of marriage, founded on natural law, enlightened and enriched by divine revelation,' of which the magisterium of the Church is not author, but 'guardian and authentic interpreter.' It is therefore a doctrinal pronouncement, based on natural law, but also enjoys the light of revelation, given in an authentic way.

The truths of the faith and moral teaching cannot be separated. Since the Council of Trent, then at Vatican I and Vatican II, the formula in fide et moribus [of faith and morals] indicates the object of authentic magisterial teaching, given with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which can be the object of definitive teaching.

NCR : Is it infallible in the Church or open to question? Is it reformable?

LM : One must not confuse a solemn act of the magisterium with infallibility. The theologian [Msgr. Ferdinando] Lambruschini, when he presented the encyclical Humanae Vitae to the press, while denying that it was a solemn act with the note of infallibility, described it as an 'authentic pronouncement' of 'Catholic doctrine,' with the qualification of 'nonreformability,' which therefore asked for a 'loyal and full, interior as well as exterior assent.' It should also be pointed out that a doctrine can be infallible, even if it has not been taught by a solemn act of the Magisterium, which defines a formula. In fact, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said: 'According to the definition of Vatican I and the teaching of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 25, the Magisterium of the Pope enjoys the charism of infallibility when it proclaims by definitive act a doctrine concerning faith and morals. The whole episcopal body also benefits from the same infallibility, when preserving the bond of communion in itself and with the Successor of Peter, it teaches a sentence to be considered definitive. This means that the magisterium can teach a doctrine concerning faith and morals as definitive, either by a definitive act (solemn judgment) or by an act that does not have the form of a definition' (Introduction to the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis Oct. 28, 1995).

The teaching of Humanae Vitae was taught by Paul VI, John Paul II and subsequent popes, recalling the constant judgment of Catholic bishops on this point, as belonging to the natural moral law, and therefore as a definitive truth, that the Church cannot change. This doctrine of Humanae Vitae was later accepted, and has been for the last 50 years, by the ordinary magisterium of the bishops, dispersed throughout the world (a sign of this consensus is the Synod on the Family of 1980, and that of 2014 and 2015). It is necessary, therefore, to conclude that this teaching is definitive, which justifies the clear words of St. John Paul II: 'What the Church teaches about contraception does not belong to matters freely disputable among theologians. Teaching the opposite is tantamount to inducing into error the moral conscience of the spouses' (speech June 5, 1987). These words are still valid today: those who question the irreformable value of the doctrine of Humanae Vitae 'mislead the moral conscience of the spouses.'

NCR : Can there be an evolution of the doctrine of Humanae Vitae?

LM : The development of doctrine can certainly take place provided that it does not mean a negation or contradiction with what the Magisterium taught before: eodem sensu, eademque substantia (Vatican I). The vital coherence with Tradition, without spurious additions and without loss of essential elements, is a condition for organic development, as Blessed John Henry Newman taught. Otherwise, we fall into modernism, which claims to transform the doctrine from within, adapting its formulas to the conscience and religious experience of the times. It was Paul VI himself in an audience on Jan. 19, 1972 who denounced the survival of modernism, which 'under other names is still present,' because it is the expression of a series of errors that could 'totally ruin our conception of life and history.'

There are presumed to be 'paradigm shifts,' which while claiming not to change doctrine, actually distort its meaning, since they make good what was previously evil and evil what was previously good. The space for the development of the doctrine is that of an anthropological and theological deepening, as happened in the 'theology of the body' of St. John Paul II. The limit proposed by the negative moral norms, concerning intrinsically bad actions, represents a point of verification that a development of doctrine does not amount to its perversion. 'Heaven and earth will pass, my words will not pass,' says the Lord.

NCR : What is the relationship between norm and conscience? In what sense is there a primacy of conscience?

LM : The decisive point of the current debate concerns the relationship between the norm, taught by Humanae Vitae, and conscience, to which one would like to attribute primacy. It should be remembered that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia, while hoping for a better involvement of the conscience of people in the practice of the Church, reaffirms that it is necessary first 'to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one's pastor' (No. 303). Certainly it is the judgment of the conscience that determines the concrete value of an act, but the moral conscience must be formed in its dependence on the truth about good and evil.

Here the decisive point is the magisterium of St. John Paul II in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which cannot be forgotten or set aside. It excludes the autonomous or creative conception of conscience, which is not the source for deciding what is good and what is evil, since 'profoundly imprinted upon it [is] a principle of obedience vis-à-vis the objective norm' (No. 60), the expression of the truth about good and not an arbitrary and changeable decree of a human authority. For this reason 'circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice.' (No. 81).

NCR : Regarding the discussion in the period of the Synod on the Family, what advantages did it bring to the subject of Humanae Vitae?

LM : If we then consider the development of the synodal discussion, it must be noted that the ambiguous interpretation of the role of conscience in the application of the norm of HV 14, contained in the instrumentum laboris (137), prepared for the Synodal Assembly of 2015, was not only the object of great protest (appeal of 200 moralist theologians), but was effectively put aside by the synod fathers in the final document and this indicates, beyond media manipulation, what their true mind was.

There are those who affirm that the true sentiment of Paul VI would have been much more permissive than the letter of Humanae Vitae and the interpretation later affirmed by the Church.

Paul VI was not a weather vane. The BBC journalist who announced the publication of the encyclical July 25, 1968, confessed that he admired the Pope, precisely because of his courage to go against the tide, in the face of enormous media pressure (and not only). Therefore, it seems truly petty and pitiful to try to make Blessed Paul VI appear as a timid person, who out of fear would have yielded to the decisive question of Humanae Vitae under the curial pressure of the traditionalists while his sentiment would have been different, with the absurd pretense of crediting oneself today as true interpreters of his profound sentiment, that in the years of debate when he was bitterly contested he sided with the public dissent that so embittered him.

NCR : How do you judge the loose interpretations that undermine the normative value of the encyclical of Blessed Paul VI?

LM : Equally instrumental is the 'spiritualist' interpretation of an encyclical, dedicated to illustrating an ideal and principles but without arriving at any normative and practical conclusion ('the problem of Humanae Vitae - it is said - cannot be reduced to: pill Yes, pill No!'), which would be entrusted to the primacy of subjective consciousness.

In reality Humanae Vitae is the opposite of this spiritualistic Gnosticism or of this 'moral docetism' (R. Brown): It is an encyclical that speaks of the flesh and of its concreteness of conjugal intimacy, because it knows well that it is there that the truth of love, of the authenticity of relationships and, at the end, also the common good of a society is decided.

[NCRegister] 2245.19






















I don’t want to talk about it

STEVE SKOJEC writes for OnePeterFive: 'I’ve spent every one of my 40 years on this planet as a Catholic with no direct contact to the sexual abuse crisis that is currently dominating the headlines in every Catholic publication, and not a few non-Catholic ones besides.

I was an altar boy for many years, starting at a young age. I befriended my elderly parish priest as a teen and spent many of my lunch hours with him while working just blocks away. I became a lector at a young age. I taught catechism. I led youth groups. In college, I worked for the pastor of my parish as a groundskeeper and general assistant.

I even became involved with the Legionaries of Christ, whose founder is now arguably the most notorious predator priest in Church history. I went on retreats with them, participated in and led six different missionary efforts with them, attended one of their schools, taught in another, and lived in community with their priests for a year and a half. I spent part of the summer after I graduated from high school in their seminary discernment program.

Never in my life has any priest made a pass at me. Never have I been touched inappropriately or even given a hint that a priest I knew was so inclined. Neither have any family members disclosed this to me. Nor have any friends.

I’ve dated two girls who were sexually abused by family members, but nobody I have ever known personally has ever made known to me that he was molested by a priest.

I’ve known more than one priest falsely accused of improprieties. In each case, it had to do with rejection of their attempts to impose orthodoxy, and not something they were actually guilty of. Both were, in their own ways, exonerated.

In 2002, when the sex abuse crisis broke, I did not believe it at first. I thought it was exaggerated. I reacted with outrage at what I thought was just another attack on the Church. A couple of years later, I met a Catholic man through my job who had been involved in the investigation of the Church abuse accusations. He managed to convince me that there was truth to it. That it wasn’t just anti-Catholic bias.

I have friends who were close to Fr. Donald McGuire, S.J., who will serve out the rest of his life in prison for molesting boys in his spiritual care – despite his oft-cited distinction of being confessor to Mother Teresa. I met him twice – once at a retreat, once at the wedding of a close friend. Neither I nor my friends who spent so long under his spiritual direction were given any indication that anything was amiss. In fact, one friend had his life turned around for the better by Fr. McGuire. Another cited his spiritual guidance to me more times than I can count. I’ve never understood how a bad tree could bear good fruit, but some do.

The truth is, even today, I don’t really want to talk about the abuse crisis, which is now entering a second, more intense round following the revelation that nothing really changed after an initial wave of complaints, disciplinary actions, and billions of dollars in payouts beginning at the turn of the century.

But what I want doesn’t matter.

The children, adolescents, seminarians, and priests who were abused, intimidated, or harassed by Catholic clerics didn’t want to endure what they were forced to endure, either. But they did. And the ones who have found the courage to come forward, like Peter Mitchell, deserve to be heard and supported.

I suspect we’re going to be talking about this for some time to come. And it will by turns enrage us, sadden us, and make us wonder when we will ever see a light at the end of this particularly dark tunnel. It will make us question whether the Church can ever be trusted again.

But we have to face this.

In fact, it seems nearly impossible to believe that this culture of secrecy and perversion is not inextricably intertwined with the overarching problems with heresy, doctrinal error, and general ecclesiastical corruption we fight every day in our work here. For example, I never suspected the sexual perversities that riddled the founder of the Legionaries or the moral depravity that allowed his top lieutenants to cover for him, but I knew long before the full extent of Fr. Maciel’s crimes were revealed that the organization was corrupt, in some way, right to the top. The lies, the manipulation, the objectification of human beings, the corruption of spiritual direction, the rejection of any criticism, the sheer self-serving utilitarianism of every apostolate made clear to me that there was a systemic problem. It was only later that I came to understand that it was a culture crafted to protect a predator.

Some people believe that this time, things will be different. That change will come to the Church at last. I tend to think so, but I can’t explain why. It’s more gut feeling than factual interpretation and thus subject to error. Others think, just like every other time before, that things will remain the same. Platitudes and false pieties will be used to plaster over serious issues. Clerics will close ranks. Simplistic solutions will be issued instead of actual correctives.

Maybe they’re right. But we have to try.

I hope you will be patient with us as we do so. No matter how distasteful it may be, I’m not sure there’s anything more important we can be doing right now.

[1P5] 2245.19a





















McCarrick: In the spirit of Francis

MICHAEL MATT writes for The Remnant : 'So even though most well-informed lay Catholics knew exactly what Cardinal McCarrick was all about even twenty years ago, somehow Cardinal Blase Cupich, Pope Francis and the rest were completely in the dark, even to the extent of awarding this monster with trophies and high honors? This beggars belief.

McCarrick's red hat is not the only one that needs to be turned in. Racks full of them need to be, starting with McCarrick's former roommate, Cardinal Kevin Farrell--appointed by McCarrick as vicar-general for the archdiocese of Washington, named auxiliary bishop of Washington by John Paul II, consecrated bishop by McCarrick, and appointed Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life and finally created Cardinal by Pope Francis in 2016.




By the way, #stopthesynod. Stop the Synod on Young People, and stop Ireland's World Meeting of Families--at least until this mess can be sorted out and it can be determined how and why the Catholic hierarchy was transformed into one, big, fabulous gay pride parade!



[The Remnant] 2245.19b






















ELIZABETH YORE writes for The Remnant : 'The unmasking of McCarrick exposed the pervasive prelate coverup of homosexual sexual predation in the American Catholic Church. These swarmy power brokers have colluded far too long at the tragic expense of innocent boys and seminarians. For 60 years, Ted McCarrick roamed the halls of seminaries, harassing, raping, and assaulting young males around the world. His brother bishops all knew and they all stayed silent.

How fortuitous and revelatory that McCarrick, the Molester would divulge his personal role in the pre-Conclave lobbying effort to elect Jorge Bergoglio as Pope. The notorious lavender mafia anxiously sought a simpatico Pope to advance its reformist homosexual agenda.

Bergoglio was their man.

The now well known McCarrick Villanova Speech on October 13, 2013 where he relayed the story about a prominent Italian man who met with McCarrick to ask him to lobby for the election of Bergoglio to the papacy. In light of the McCarrick scandal, the conversation takes on new meaning...

McCarrick described the conversation with the Influential Roman:

“Before we went into the General Congregation, a very interesting and influential Italian gentleman came to see me at the Seminary (where else?) where I was staying. We sat down and he’s a very brilliant man, very influential in Rome and said he had a favor to ask of me back home in the U.S., but then he said:”

Influential Roman: What about Bergoglio?

Molester McCarrick: I was surprised and said, What about Bergoglio?

Influential Roman: Does he have a chance?

Molester McCarrick: I don’t think so. No one has mentioned his name. He isn’t on anyone’s mind.

Influential Roman: He could do it you know.

Molester McCarrick: What could he do?

Influential Roman: He could reform the Church. If you gave him 5 years, he could get us back on target. He’s 76. If he had 5 years—the Lord working through him, he could make the Church over again.

Molester McCarrick: That’s interesting.

Influential Roman: I know you are his friend.

Molester McCarrick: I hope I am.

Influential Roman: Talk him up.

And talk him up, McCarrick the Molester did!

Oh, the irony! That the most prolific serial predator Cardinal would divulge the pre-Conclave Bergoglio plot to “reform the Church.” Now we know what “reform the Church” looks like in the Bergoglian papacy.

Yes, the clever and tyrannical Bergoglio, through his manipulation of synods, footnotes, exhortations, personal phone calls, airplane pressers, and correspondence has nearly completed his task of modernizing the Roman Catholic Church in the past 5 years.

The rallying cry for his homosexual modern agenda was sounded in his July 29, 2013 airplane presser. Who am I to judge set the tone for merciful embrace of homosexual priests. After 5 long years, his unrelenting mercy mantra seemingly extends only to homosexual clerics, not to the laity or clergy victims who protest the cover ups by prelates. Francis’ wink and nod to the homosexual lifestyle landed him on the cover of the Advocate, the gay magazine, as its Man of the Year. He lapped up the accolades from the secular culture and main stream media. Yet, fame is and predation is unrelenting, even for Popes.

In the words of Queen Elizabeth, this year has been annus horribilis for Francis. Excuse the gay slang pun but, the chickens have come home to roost. The cascading revelations of papal sex scandals are toppling the barque of Peter.

Will Catholic laity pay attention and take action?

The McCarrick scandal created an earthquake in the Catholic Church with aftershocks that will last for years. The timing is eerily propitious and providential based on the 5 year deadline. Will the laity step up and reclaim our hijacked Catholic Church?

This critical time in the history of the Catholic Church demands that the laity step forward to protect the Church, its children and seminarians from predators. We must close ranks before another precious child is exploited, a holy seminarian is violated, or another homosexual orgy is covered up at the Vatican.

The first order of business is to scuttle the upcoming October Synod on Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment. Remember that influential Roman gentleman friend of McCarrick who said that Bergoglio could reform the Church in 5 years? Bergoglio’s upcoming Synod on Young People will serve as the culminating vehicle for the 5 year modernist reform of the St. Gallen Mafia.

This Synod is designed to exploit the youth, like they’ve been doing for the last 60 years.

If it weren’t so infuriating, it would be laughable that following the McCarrick scandal of sexual predation of young males and seminarians, by a Cardinal, and covered up by Bishops, the Catholic Church would host a Synod of Bishops on the topic of young people and vocations! Furthermore, this nightmare of a “sinod" is inviting youth from ages 16-29 to mingle with the Bishops to discuss the Church, faith and vocations.

Are you thoroughly disgusted by this farce?

The Bishops have proven that they cannot be trusted to protect young people and seminarians from predators. The ever growing global list of Bishops and Cardinals that have preyed on /and or covered up the sexual abuse of minors and seminarians over the last 60 years continues to enrage the laity. We are no longer Shocked, just fed up.

Let’s start with the Cardinal who will lead the upcoming Synod, none other than Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life. As the DC roommate and protege of Ted McCarrick, Farrell so respected McCarrick, the Molester, that he fashioned his Coat of Arms as a tribute to Uncle Ted.

Farrell’s pathetic and laughable defense “I never knew anything about McCarrick” video highlights the continuing conspiracy of denial by the U.S. Catholic hierarchy. Undoubtedly, Farrell as the head of this Synod chose his dear friend gay friendly, Fr. James Martin, S.J. to keynote the Synod. Farrell’s graciously offers notorious praise for Martin’s new book, Building a Bridge (to hell, ed.) exposes his obvious underlying homosexual agenda and aura of the upcoming Synod:

“A welcome and much-needed book that will help bishops, priests, pastoral associates, and all church leaders more compassionately minister to the LGBT community. It will also help LGBT Catholics feel more at home in what is, after all, their church.”

What merciful praise for Martin’s book, Cardinal Farrell! Contrary to the theme of mercy and compassion to LGBTs, it appears that your mentor, McCarrick set out to groom and grow an LGBT community. Clearly, you and Fr. Martin have much in common since you both claimed you were “shocked” by the McCarrick allegations.

Explain to Catholics why would you headline a homosexual affirming speaker at a Synod for youth and seminarians? In case you haven’t been reading the McCarrick headlines or noticing the plunging mass attendance and collections, Catholics don’t trust their boys around priests and are furious that their seminarians are subjected to unrelenting homosexual sexual harassment.

McCarrick is the last straw. All credibility is lost.

The October Synod is yet another example of Church leaders exploiting Catholic youth for their own personal power agenda and selfish motives. Bergoglio’s five year plan is nearly complete. Catholics must shed their trust and naivety in the papacy and bishops’ conference. Dare, if you will, to read the thrill, the excitement and anticipated results of the Synod in the radical New Ways Gay Catholic Ministry article, entitled, Youth Synod Document shows Vatican evolution on LGBT Topics. The article highlights the New Ways excitement over the shift in the Vatican approach to the LGBT issues at the Synod:

“Another significant development is the acknowledgement that LGBT people have a desire to be part of the church. In one section, the document states: “some LGBT youth … wish to benefit from greater closeness and experience greater care from the Church.”

“This acknowledgement is a welcome change from the hierarchy’s traditional rhetoric that suggests LGBT people are opposed to religion. As New Ways Ministry knows from over 40 years of pastoral work with the LGBT community, LGBT Catholics have a deep spirituality, often forged by remarkable journeys overcoming rejection, alienation, and marginalization. LGBT Catholics have stayed a part of the church, despite statements and actions which have offended and hurt them.”

The New Ways article highlights the efforts of Cardinal Kevin Farrell and his Vatican cronies to promote the LGBT agenda for the upcoming Synod:

“A third development is that the document shows that Vatican officials paid attention to concerns about LGBT issues which were raised by youth at a pre-synod meeting in Rome during March of this year, and also from youth around the world who made their views known to the Vatican online.”

And what of the infamous Instrumentum Laboris, drafted by the crafty Cardinal Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, noteworthy of the infamous First Synod on the Family? Known for his manipulative polls and magical modernistic results, Baldisseri infamously stated that “dogma has its own evolution.” Baldisseri stayed true to his modernist form and agenda and to the delight of the New Ways Ministry, he announced at the Vatican press conference that his office is using for the first time ever the LGBT acronym to refer to gay people in a spirit of inclusion.

Lest there be any doubt about the secret agenda and outcome of this Synod, Cardinal Baldisseri raises the exclusion rainbow flag. Baldisseri notes that the upcoming Synod is to “make the entire Church aware of its important mission to accompany every young person, none excluded.”

This papacy is awash in the prissy, pop psycho speak, jargon of accompaniment, listening, and dialogue dazzling the media with empty tropes and luring the uncatechized into its globalist mantra of one world new age religion.

Not surprisingly, Baldisseri never once mentions that dreaded word, dogma in the Instrumentum Laboris, but effuses about accompaniment 136 times! This doltish and dimwitted document wreaks of psycho babble, insults the intelligence of young people, and will destroy the future of the Church.

Welcome to the dumbing down of the Catholic Faith by the St. Gallen Mafia and their don, Jorge Bergoglio.

This Synod will exploit the youth and seminarians, just like Ted McCarrick. The handwriting is all over the 37 foot Vatican wall.

The time to take a stand against this radical hijacking of Holy Mother Church is now. Expose and rout every last predator. Purge every homosexual from its clerical ranks.


It has all the markings of a Gay Pride Rally.


[Elizabeth Yore is an attorney and international child rights advocate who has investigated clergy sex abuse cases].


[Remnant] 2245.19





















They are everywhere now

CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA writes for Fatima Perspectives :' With the fall of Cardinal McCarrick and news of the grand jury report regarding an investigation of no fewer than 300 sexual predator priests in Pennsylvania dioceses alone, it should be obvious to anyone who is not willfully blind that the “pedophile crisis” of the early 2000s is actually a homosexual crisis involving a veritable invasion of the Church at all levels by active homosexuals.

I attended the 2002 “pedophile summit” in Rome as a journalist. During the press event at the North American College, I asked Bishop Wilton Gregory, then head of the USCCB, about the obvious failure to enforce the pre-Vatican II instruction of the Holy See barring admission of homosexuals, and even those with homosexual tendencies, to the seminary, and he replied (as quoted in press reports around the world): “It is an ongoing struggle. It is most importantly a struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men.” As I wrote back then: “Despite this devastating admission by the very head of United States bishops’ conference, the Vatican instruction will continue to be ignored. Thus, a new bumper crop of homosexual ordinands is guaranteed — and with it a new harvest of scandal for the Church.”

My prediction of 16 years ago has come to pass. But it did not take a prophet to see what was coming, because it was obvious back then that major segments of the hierarchy were knowingly presiding over the homosexual invasion of the priesthood and that they intended to do nothing to stop it but rather fully intended to go on concealing it.

In fact, at the “pedophile summit,” which pretended the problem was not rampant homosexuality in the priesthood but a few child molesters, the American cardinals in attendance, “after forty years of ordaining homosexuals in defiance of the Vatican’s never-enforced instruction that ‘those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination,’” were willing to do nothing more than state the following preposterously inadequate proposal in their ridiculous Final Communiqué: “We will propose that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recommend a special process for the dismissal from the clerical state of a priest who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors.”

Note the lawyer-like qualifications on the language: the cardinals proposed that the bishops vote on whether to recommend a process to remove from the priesthood only notorious, serial and predatory child molesters, leaving not only secret child molesters but also all the homosexuals engaging in sodomy with legal adults safely in place — including Cardinal McCarrick, one of the very leaders of the “pedophile summit.”

And this is not even to mention the existence of the same sodomitical corruption of the hierarchy on every continent and in virtually every nation on earth. Never, absolutely never, has the Church witnessed the level of moral, doctrinal and liturgical corruption that has arisen in her midst since the “opening to the world” at Vatican II. In these unprecedented times, we can only keep the Faith, speak the truth, and expect the divine chastisement that is surely coming unless, by a miracle of grace, the Message of Fatima is finally heeded and obeyed by a holy and courageous Pope, whose name may well be Pius.

[FP] 2245.19d



















Cardinal Maradiaga: Enabler of Monsters

Author’s Note: This article was originally written in May of 2015. It is especially relevant now in light of Vice Pope Cardinal Maradiaga’s outrageous comments regarding the 48 Honduras Seminarians who wrote a letter protesting against what they say is a widespread and entrenched pattern of homosexual practice in Tegucigalpa’s major seminary. Honduras Cardinal Maradiaga instead accused the seminarians of being “gossipers” and called them “weeds and evil.” Catholics should demand the resignation of Cardinal Maradiaga and fully support the “Honduras 48.”This article highlights the dangerous attitudes by the second highest prelate in the Vatican. Many call him the Pope’s closest confidante. –Liz Yore

Cdl.MaradiagaELIZABETH YORE writes for The Remnant : 'Within four days of being elected pontiff, Pope Francis selected his longtime friend, Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga as the head of his Council of 8 Cardinal Advisors. Media pundits have described Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga as the “Vice Pope” for Maradiaga effusively pontificates (pun intended) about Pope Francis’ thoughts, feelings, plans, encyclicals, likes, dislikes, you name it. Cardinal Rodriquez Maradiaga loves basking in the limelight of the popular pontiff.

Maradiaga calls Pope Francis his “friend and brother” who evangelizes with “encyclicals of gestures,” which speak louder than words and texts.

In 2002, in an interview with the Italian Catholic Magazine, 30 Giorni, at the height of the U.S. clergy child sex abuse scandal Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga blamed the coverage of the clergy crisis on the Jewish media for a bias against the Catholic Church. Maradiaga suggested that the Jewish media obsession with the sexual scandals was prompted by the Catholic Church receiving Arafat and calling for the creation of a Palestinian state

"The Cardinal’s odious anti-Jewish conspiracy theory must be immediately and forcefully condemned by responsible voices in the Catholic Church," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, in a letter sent to Cardinal Walter Kasper, of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews. "We are outraged by Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga’s implication and, as John L. Allen, Jr. states in the July 19th Catholic Reporter, ‘the logic of his comments seems clear: Someone in America doesn’t like the pro-Palestinian tilt of the Catholic Church and used their media clout to deliver payback. It’s not much of a reach to imagine who Rodriguez might suspect that ‘someone’ to be.’"

John Allen, in his book All the Pope’s Men: the Inside Story how the Vatican Really Thinks relays the following conversation between Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, ADL explained to the Cardinal that his comments were offensive because they perpetuated an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about Jewish control of the media. The Cardinal apologized, said he never meant his remarks to be taken that way, and indicated that he would never say it again.

Nevertheless, Maradiaga goes on to say, “Pedophilia is an illness, and it is just that whoever has it should leave the priesthood. But the accusations must always be proved with a just process, and without persecution from the civil authorities, which is what is actually happening.” Maradiaga focuses his abundance of mercy on the pedophile perpetrators.

The Vice Pope incredibly states, “We must ask, where is Jesus in all this? For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop. We are totally different, and I’d be prepared to go to jail rather than harm one of my priests. I say this with great clarity.”

There is no mistaking the clarity and intent of Vice Pope Maradiaga about the vice of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy. His candid and alarming beliefs about not harming one of his priests by reporting them to law enforcement authorities although a legal requirement in all jurisdictions in the United States. Maradiaga seems far more concerned about the harm of punishment done to his priests who abuse children than the severe harm and trauma suffered by a child who loses his innocence and faith at the hands of a Catholic priest.

Maradiaga continues his defense of abuser priests, sounding a ‘who am I to judge’ theme:

“We can judge the exterior facts, but not the interior life of the person. We must always have a pastoral, Christian attitude.”

“We, bishops must not forget that we are merciful pastors and not agents of the FBI or CIA.”

This is the calamity of “Who am I to Judge?”

This is the Merciful Francis Papacy?

Apparently, this was the merciful stance taken toward McCarrick the Molester by his brother prelates.

Mercy for their clerical brethren, but not for the innocent children?

Maradiaga’s rant continued during a May 16, 2002, press conference, when he questioned the motivations of the clergy abuse victims. “I have my doubts about the motivation behind these scandals. “Obviously someone who has the sickness of pedophilia should not be in the priesthood. But why bring up these things now from 40 or 30 years ago? Why is it that they bring these skeletons out of the closet?” “We know well that every time money mixes with justice it becomes unjust.” The Vice Pope doesn’t seem to comprehend that children who are sexually abused by priests are terrorized into silence and shame for decades. The predator priest often threatens his victims that no one will believe them. For decades, victims don’t disclose and live with the guilt of the abuse and its devastating life consequences.

During his tirade about the U.S. clergy abuse scandal, Cardinal Maradiaga remarked, “We must always ask how Jesus would conduct himself.” or “Where is Jesus in all of this?”

Good question, Vice Pope.

Jesus spoke with marked clarity and stinging rebuke on this subject and didn’t seem concerned at all about treating predators with mercy.

Matthew 18:6-9. provides clear guidance from Jesus.

In July of 2003, Rodriguez was again asked about his opinions on the Catholic clergy scandal. “I don’t repent.” “Maybe I was a little strong, but sometimes it’s necessary to shake things up.”

Well, thanks to Uncle Ted McCarrick, the laity are now shaking things up now.

Francis “talks tough” on clergy abuse, but his papacy is awash in sex abuse scandals by his chosen favorites. The SNAP assessment of his utter failure to address clergy sex abuse while Cardinal of Buenos Aires, suggests that he and his Vice Pope share the Latin American view of mercy for predators.

In the same May 2001 interview, Maradiaga criticized the U.S. judicial civil system of depositions as recalling, “the most dark times of Stalinist processes against churchmen in Eastern Europe.” According to Maradiaga, Boston Cardinal Law was “persecuted” by the press.

The American judicial system that Cardinal Maradiaga scorns so contemptuously uncovered a massive cover up by Church officials of devastating sexual abuse of minors at the hands of predator priests. But for the legal system and the media, innocent victims who carried the horrendous burden and shame of their secret terror at the hands of clergy would remain forever silent. The truth was uncovered and countless children were saved from further abuse at the hands of these protected criminal predators.

That’s justice, American style. It’s not quite a millstone around the neck of the predator who is thrown in the depths of the sea, as Jesus advises, but it’s nonetheless true mercy and justice for the innocent victims.

On the footsteps of McCarrick’s resignation, Cardinal Maradiaga should be the next Cardinal shown the door.

It’s time to shake things up.

[Elizabeth Yore is an international child protection attorney who has investigated clergy child sex abuse cases].


[Remnant] 2245.SAT1





















Our Catholic Heritage

Site of the day : Ickburgh




A HOSPITAL, SS Mary & Lawrence, was founded at Ickburgh,Norfolk, in 1323, by William Barentun. He granted land and a fair on the feast of Saint Lawrence to maintain a chaplain in the chapel of St Mary 'Newbrigge'. It was dissolved prior to 1449 and was dependent on the Austin Friars. The remains, once a farmhouse but later 'deteriorated into cottages', stood by the river. Four miles to the north at Hillborough, are remains of a chapel that was dedicated to Saint Margaret of Antioch, used by pilgrims on their way to Walsingham.





















Salve Regina



[freshaintdead] 2245.21






















Benedict XVI



CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS (USA)writes :' On May 11, 2010, during the flight to Portugal, Benedict fielded a small number of pre-selected questions from the media that were presented to him by Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., then-Director of the Holy See Press Office. The third and final series of questions reads as follows:

'… Your Holiness, what meaning do the Fatima apparitions have for us today? In June 2000, when you presented the text of the third secret in the Vatican Press Office, a number of us and our former colleagues were present. You were asked if the message could be extended, beyond the attack on John Paul II, to other sufferings on the part of the Popes. Is it possible, to your mind, to include in that vision the sufferings of the Church today for the sins involving the sexual abuse of minors?'

Here, in part, was Benedict's explosive answer:

'… In 2000, in my presentation, I said that an apparition - a supernatural impulse which does not come purely from a person's imagination but really from the Virgin Mary, from the supernatural - that such an impulse enters into a subject and is expressed according to the capacities of that subject. … Consequently, I would say that, here too, beyond this great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in the first place refer to Pope John Paul II, an indication is given of realities involving the future of the Church, which are gradually taking shape and becoming evident. So it is true that, in addition to moment indicated in the vision, there is mention of, there is seen, the need for a passion of the Church, which naturally is reflected in the person of the Pope, yet the Pope stands for the Church and thus it is sufferings of the Church that are announced. The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world. … As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church, and that the Church thus has a deep need to relearn penance, to accept purification, to learn forgiveness on the one hand, but also the need for justice. Forgiveness does not replace justice.' [emphasis added]

[Pope Benedict XVI] 2245.22